[Congressional Record Volume 144, Number 95 (Thursday, July 16, 1998)]
[House]
[Pages H5642-H5651]
From the Congressional Record Online through the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]




   PROVIDING FOR CONSIDERATION OF H.R. 4194, DEPARTMENTS OF VETERANS 
  AFFAIRS AND HOUSING AND URBAN DEVELOPMENT, AND INDEPENDENT AGENCIES 
                        APPROPRIATIONS ACT, 1999

  Mr. LINDER. Mr. Speaker, by direction of the Committee on Rules, I 
call up House Resolution 501 and ask for its immediate consideration.
  The Clerk read the resolution, as follows:

                              H. Res. 501

       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 
     Whole House on the state of the Union for consideration of 
     the bill (H.R. 4194) making appropriations for the 
     Departments of Veterans Affairs and Housing and Urban 
     Development, and for sundry independent agencies, boards, 
     commissions, corporations, and offices for the fiscal year 
     ending September 30, 1999, 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 
     section 306 of the Congressional Budget Act of 1974 are 
     waived. General debate shall be confined to the bill and 
     shall not exceed one hour equally divided and controlled by 
     the chairman and ranking minority member of the Committee on 
     Appropriations. After general debate the bill shall be 
     considered for amendment under the five-minute rule. The 
     amendment printed in 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 except as 
     follows: page 88, line 16, through page 91, line 3. Where 
     points of order are waived against part of a paragraph, 
     points of order against a provision in another part of such 
     paragraph may be made only against such provision and not 
     against the entire paragraph. The amendment printed in the 
     Congressional Record and numbered 12 pursuant to clause 6 of 
     rule XXIII may be offered only by Representative Leach of 
     Iowa or his designee, shall be considered as read, shall be 
     debatable for 40 minutes equally divided and controlled by 
     the proponent and an opponent, shall not be subject to 
     amendment, and shall not be subject to a demand for division 
     of the question in the House or in the Committee of the 
     Whole. All points of order against that amendment are waived. 
     During consideration of the bill for further amendment, the 
     Chairman of the Committee of the Whole may accord priority in 
     recognition on the basis of whether the Member offering an 
     amendment has caused it to be printed in the portion of the 
     Congressional Record designated for that purpose in clause 6 
     of rule XXIII. Amendments so printed shall be considered as 
     read. The chairman of the Committee of the Whole may: (1) 
     postpone until a time during further consideration in the 
     Committee of the Whole a request for a recorded vote on any 
     amendment; and (2) reduce to five minutes the minimum time 
     for electronic voting on any postponed question that follows 
     another electronic vote without intervening business, 
     provided that the minimum time for electronic voting on the 
     first in any series of questions shall be 15 minutes. 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 amendments 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.

  The SPEAKER pro tempore. The gentleman from Georgia (Mr. Linder) is 
recognized for 1 hour.
  Mr. LINDER. Mr. Speaker, for the purpose of debate only, I yield the 
customary 30 minutes to the gentleman from Ohio (Mr. Hall), pending 
which I yield myself such time as I may consume. During consideration 
of this resolution, all time yielded is for the purpose of debate only.
  Mr. Speaker, House Resolution 501 is an open rule providing for 
consideration of H.R. 4194, the VA, HUD and Independent Agencies 
Appropriations bill for fiscal year 1999. The rule also includes a 
customary waiver of section 306 of the Budget Act relating to the 
prohibition on including matters within the jurisdiction of the 
Committee on the Budget in a measure not reported by it.
  H. Res. 501 provides for one hour of general debate divided equally 
between the chairman and ranking minority member of the Committee on 
Appropriations. The rule provides that the amendment printed in the 
Committee on Rules report accompanying the resolution shall be 
considered as adopted.
  This amendment, offered by the gentleman from Mississippi (Mr. 
Wicker) will require studies on issues related to flame resistant 
standards and fire-related deaths.
  The rule waives points of order against provisions in the bill for 
failure to comply with clause 2 and clause 6 of rule XXI, except as 
specified in the rule.
  The rule also makes in order the amendment printed in the 
Congressional Record numbered 12 which may be offered only by the 
gentleman from Iowa (Mr. Leach) or a designee, shall be considered as 
read, shall be debatable for 40 minutes 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 division of the question in the 
House or in the Committee of the Whole. The rule waives all points of 
order against the amendment.
  The rule also accords priority in recognition to Members who have 
preprinted their amendments in the Congressional Record and allows the 
chairman to postpone recorded votes and reduce to 5 minutes the voting 
time on any postponed question, provided voting time on any first in a 
series of questions is not less than 15 minutes.
  These provisions will facilitate consideration of amendments and 
guarantee the timely completion of the appropriation bills.
  House Resolution 501 also provides for one motion to recommit with or 
without instructions.
  Mr. Speaker, House Resolution 501 is an open rule providing Members 
with every opportunity to amend this appropriations bill. As I stated 
earlier, the Committee on Rules has made in order an amendment to be 
offered by the gentleman from Iowa (Mr. Leach) consisting of the text 
of H.R. 2, the United States Housing Act, which passed the House by an 
overwhelming 293 to 132 vote last year. This bill will reform failing 
public housing authorities, impose professional management standards on 
projects receiving Federal money, and impose a rational housing policy 
reforms.
  While this legislation passed the House last year, we have allowed it 
to be offered on this bill because it is necessary to advance this 
important housing reform legislation before the end of the legislative 
session.
  H.R. 4194 appropriates a total of $70.89 billion for fiscal 1999. I 
want to

[[Page H5643]]

mention a number of important provisions in this bill.
  First, as I mentioned, the House will have the opportunity to 
consider a comprehensive housing reform amendment. However, in addition 
to these critical reforms, the appropriations bill amply funds housing 
programs for the Nation's elderly and the disabled, homeless assistance 
grants, Native American housing, the HOME program, and increases 
funding for severely distressed housing.
  Regarding appropriations for our veterans, this country has a 
commitment to our men and women in uniform and we, as Americans, owe 
these dedicated men and women a debt of gratitude. Under this bill, 
medical care for our Nation's veterans is funded at $17.1 billion, an 
increase of $39 million over the President's request, and veterans 
medical research is funded at $310 million, $10 million over the 
President's request. Overall, the Department of Veterans Affairs 
discretionary programs are funded at $19 billion, $168 million above 
the President's request.
  Finally, H.R. 4194 also continues this Congress' efforts to protect 
America's environmental resources. This bill provides needed funds for 
Safe Drinking Water State Revolving Funds, Clean Water State Revolving 
Funds, State Air Grants, and a number of programs that will ensure 
clean water for our citizens. We do not often get credit for our 
efforts on environmental protection, but this bill is yet another 
example of the strong environmental protection efforts we have made.
  The Committee on Appropriations has balanced a wide array of 
interests and has ensured that all funding is spent efficiently and 
where it is needed most.
  I commend the gentleman from California (Mr. Lewis), chairman, and 
the ranking minority member, the gentleman from Ohio (Mr. Stokes) for 
the bipartisan manner in which they constructed this appropriations 
bill.
  H.R. 4194 was favorably reported out of the Committee on 
Appropriations, as was the open rule by the Committee on Rules.
  I urge my colleagues to support the rule so that we may proceed with 
general debate and consideration of the merits of this important bill.
  Mr. Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.
  Mr. HALL of Ohio. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may 
consume.
  I thank the gentleman from Georgia (Mr. Linder) for yielding me the 
time.
  This rule will allow for consideration of H.R. 4194, which is a bill 
that makes appropriations in fiscal year 1999 for the Departments of 
Veterans Affairs, Housing and Urban Development, Environmental 
Protection Agency and other independent agencies.
  As my colleague from Georgia described, this rule provides one hour 
of general debate, equally divided and controlled by the chairman and 
ranking minority member of the Committee on Appropriations.
  The rule also makes in order an amendment containing the text of H.R. 
2, as passed by the House, May 14, 1997, which makes reforms in Federal 
public housing programs. Under the rule, no amendments may be offered 
to H.R. 2. It is inappropriate to consider H.R. 2 in this fashion, and 
it threatens the progress of the underlying appropriation bill. 
Therefore, I will oppose this rule.
  The VA, HUD appropriations bill is a very important measure. It 
provides $94.4 billion to fund critical programs such as veterans care 
and cash benefits, housing assistance for working families, disaster 
victims, emergency relief, and environmental protection.
  This bill is too important to serve merely as the vehicle for moving 
a public housing bill. Because the administration has threatened a veto 
of H.R. 2, the appropriations bill containing H.R. 2 would face a veto 
threat, and it will get bogged down in a hopelessly complex House-
Senate conference.
  Normal legislative procedure requires that the House and Senate 
appoint conferees to reconcile the differences between the House and 
Senate bills. Yet House conferees have never been selected. During the 
Committee on Rules hearing on the appropriations bill, both the 
chairman of the subcommittee, the gentleman from California (Mr. 
Lewis), and the ranking member, the gentleman from Ohio (Mr. Stokes) 
indicated they did not want H.R. 2 to be added to their bill. 
Unfortunately, their wishes were ignored.
  Both the gentleman from New York (Mr. LaFalce), ranking member of the 
Committee on Banking and Financial Services, and the gentleman from 
Massachusetts (Mr. Kennedy), ranking member of the Subcommittee on 
Housing and Community Opportunity, strongly object to this action.
  The rule contains other inconsistencies. While the 364 pages of 
legislation contained in H.R. 2 will be protected from points of order 
against legislating on an appropriation bill, other legislative 
provisions were not protected. A provision to reduce the flammability 
of children's sleepwear was left unprotected. Also left to be stripped 
out of the bill was a provision to increase the Federal housing 
administration single family loan limit. A large bipartisan coalition 
in the House supports this increase. It is difficult to understand such 
inconsistency in the rule.
  The underlying appropriations bill that we are taking up does a fair 
job of balancing competing interests, given the constraints of the 
302(b) allocation. Still, I do not agree with all the choices that the 
subcommittee made, such as eliminating AmeriCorps. This program has 
made valuable contributions to needy Americans, including raising 
student literacy rates.
  Mr. Speaker, this is a bad rule. It circumvents the normal process of 
the House. It will increase the risk that important veterans, housing 
and environmental programs will be delayed. It will interfere with the 
progress that has already been made between the House and Senate on 
public housing reform.
  For these reasons, I would ask my colleagues to vote against this 
rule.
  Mr. Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.

                              {time}  1045

  Mr. LINDER. Mr. Speaker, I yield 3 minutes to the gentleman from New 
Jersey (Mr. Frelinghuysen).
  Mr. FRELINGHUYSEN. Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentleman for yielding me 
this time, and I rise in opposition to this rule.
  As a member of the subcommittee which produced the underlying VA-HUD 
appropriations bill, I do so with no small amount of frustration. The 
gentleman from California (Mr. Lewis) and all members of our 
subcommittee labored long and hard to produce this bill and, as we 
produced it, this bill is worthy of support. But this rule is not.
  This rule fails to protect an important amendment that I offered, 
along with the gentleman from Wisconsin (Mr. Neumann), that was 
approved by the full Committee on Appropriations. Specifically, our 
amendment would raise the FHA loan limit to increase opportunities for 
home ownership as well as increase important science and research 
programs at the National Science Foundation and for veterans' medical 
research by $80 million.
  By passing this rule, Members need to understand that we take away 
the opportunity for at least 25,000 Americans every year to purchase 
their first home. Members also need to understand this rule will reduce 
funding for the National Science Foundation by $70 million and 
veterans' medical research by $10 million.
  What I find even more egregious is at the same time this rule 
circumvents the work of the Committee on Appropriations, it fully 
protects the rights of the authorizing committee, namely the Committee 
on Banking and Financial Services, to add the entire text, some 365 
pages, of their housing authorization bill to this appropriations bill. 
Something is terribly wrong with this picture.
  Mr. LEWIS of California. Mr. Speaker, will the gentleman yield?
  Mr. FRELINGHUYSEN. I yield to the gentleman from California.
  Mr. LEWIS of California. Mr. Speaker, I very much appreciate my 
colleague yielding to me, and I must say that I do so only to say that 
I very much appreciate the remarks of my colleague and I want the House 
to note my grave reservations about this rule.
  Mr. FRELINGHUYSEN. Reclaiming my time, Mr. Speaker, I thank the 
gentleman for his comments.
  In summary, Mr. Speaker, the work of the Committee on Appropriations 
is badly undermined by the rule and,

[[Page H5644]]

most important, it shortchanges important national priorities of home 
ownership and investment in science and research. This rule deserves to 
be defeated.
  Mr. HALL of Ohio. Mr. Speaker, I yield 5 minutes to the gentleman 
from Wisconsin (Mr. Obey), the ranking minority member on the Committee 
on Appropriations.
  Mr. OBEY. Mr. Speaker, first of all, I wish to congratulate the 
previous speaker, the gentleman from New Jersey (Mr. Frelinghuysen), 
who has done a lot of very hard good work on this and a number of other 
appropriation bills. I appreciate his excellent statement here this 
morning.
  Let me simply say that this rule should be defeated for a number of 
reasons. First of all because it adds, against the opposition of the 
committee that is supposed to handle the bill, it adds a 300-page 
nongermane housing authorization bill, which is highly controversial, 
to legislation which had been fairly well worked out with respect to 
other issues.
  Secondly, it does not protect from being stricken on a point of order 
a very important provision that was added by the committee which would 
strengthen people's ability to buy homes in this country. Because of 
the strange nature of this rule, there will be cuts in the amounts that 
homeowners can borrow from FHA to finance a home purchase from $109,000 
to $86,000. That will have the effect of knocking 30,000 families out 
of the ability to buy a home with FHA help this year. And we simply 
should not be doing that.
  There are lobby groups around town who might think that is a good 
thing to do. I do not think homeowners will agree with them. I do not 
think that realtors, who have to work to put people in homes, will 
agree with them. I do not think home builders will agree with them 
either.
  I would also say that at the same time that the committee provided 
this huge nongermane attachment to the bill, it prevented us from 
offering a bill which would correct the fact that this bill cuts $276 
million below last year in terms of actual delivered health care to 
veterans in this country. They prevented us from offering an amendment 
that would have allowed us to increase funding for veterans' health 
care by an additional $1.7 billion. As far as I am concerned, those are 
all the reasons that we need to oppose this rule.
  I would simply say that I do not understand why on appropriation bill 
after appropriation bill the Committee on Rules seems to intervene to 
make those bills more partisan and more controversial than they were 
when they emerged from the committee. It just seems to me that is not a 
way to build a constructive relationship which is going to be needed to 
conduct the rest of this session. It is not a way to defend the public 
interest of people in this country. And I would urge a vote against the 
rule.
  Mr. LINDER. Mr. Speaker, I yield such time as he may consume to the 
gentleman from New York (Mr. Lazio).
  Mr. LAZIO of New York. Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentleman for 
yielding me this time and for bringing this rule to the floor, which I 
think is a fair rule and speaks to one of the most important issues 
that this Congress and last Congress, quite frankly, have taken up, and 
that is reform of our failed public housing system.
  This is a bill that we have had fully vetted before. We have been 
working on this for 3 years. There are no surprises in this bill. We 
have had this bill marked up in committee. We have had this predecessor 
bill passed with a vote of about 315 to 107 in the last Congress. In 
this Congress it passed by a vote of 293 to 132, with over one-third of 
the Democratic conference voting in support of this bill.
  This is a bill that our Members understand, have voted for and 
believe deeply in. This is a message of empowerment. This is a message 
of accountability. What we are saying with public housing reform is 
that it is time to stop wasting money, throwing money at the public 
housing authorities that have failed year after year.
  Mr. Speaker, in one housing authority in New Orleans, which HUD 
scores itself, they score it from 1 being the lowest to 100 being the 
highest, do my colleagues know what that housing authority scores year 
after year? Not 70 or 80, but 25 and 27. Imagine if our children came 
home year after year with a scorecard of 27. We would do something 
about it pretty quickly. But in this Congress we have failed to act, to 
get the job done to stop wasting money and stop forcing people to live 
in government-subsidized slums.
  We want to help people out. We want to give people vouchers. We want 
to help people get the mobility to move to get better education. We 
want to give them the choice to have improvement for their families. We 
want to give people the ability to take a rental voucher and use it to 
buy a home.
  In many areas families have a rental voucher that is worth $800 or 
$900 or $1,000. And because of the work that we have done on balancing 
the budget and bringing costs down and bringing interest rates down, 
home ownership now is within the reach of many folks, by not people who 
rent; not people who are in public housing. We want to change that. We 
want to empower them. We want to give them the ability to actually own 
their own home by using these rental vouchers that do not build up 
equity, that do not give them hope, that do not give them opportunity, 
and transform that to a choice-based system that allows poor folks 
living in public housing to own their own home, to build up equity, to 
have a sense of hope, and to give their kids a sense of opportunity.
  This bill is important for so many different reasons. It is important 
because we want to devolve control of decision-making from Washington, 
D.C. to local communities. Now, why is that important? Is that just 
rhetoric? It is not just rhetoric. It is important because we want to 
build leadership in local communities, because we know that we cannot 
possibly know what goes on in every community throughout the country. 
We cannot possibly know what the housing demands are in every possible 
area of the country.
  What we do say with this statement of public housing reform is that 
we are going to provide more incentives for local leadership and more 
resident management. We are going to let residents manage their own 
building. What a novel idea. Let people run their own building so they 
have control over their own lives, so they can make choices for 
themselves, so they can have more peace of mind.
  And, increasingly, in cities throughout the country, including the 
city closest to me in New York City, we are finding leading law 
enforcement officials that are saying a key strategy and a key building 
block for safe streets and better law enforcement and better crime 
control are housing programs; to decentralize decision-making 
authority, which allows people to live in better conditions. Empower 
people, give people an investment, a sense of being a part of the 
community, a sense of place, not just being warehoused in an area, 
which is, frankly, what has happened in too many places because of the 
Federal housing programs that we have had for decades.
  We are warehousing people where we have super concentrations of 
poverty. And the result of that is exceptionally high crime rates that 
children have to live with, no services in the area because no 
businesses can afford to stay around there, no working class in the 
area, so there is no role models, and so what we have is hopelessness 
and despair.
  In this chamber, in this building we feel maybe sanitized from that. 
But if we were to go out to America and go to some of the poorest areas 
in the country, we would be ashamed of the fact that we have not made 
the changes that need to be made; ashamed of the fact that we know the 
solutions are out there. We know what to do. We know we need to get the 
mixed income. We know we need to give more responsibility to 
individuals and to communities.
  We know what we have to do, but every month and every year that we 
put off making a decision because of some procedural hodgepodge 
complaint, we are forcing more kids, more adults, and more families to 
live in despair, in hopelessness, lacking opportunity.
  Now, we can go back to our districts and thump our fists and say, oh, 
yeah, we stood up for this, we stood up for that procedural principle, 
but I tell my colleagues right now, our choice now is to get the job 
done. Get the job done. We know what needs to be done. The House has 
passed this bill twice. Now,

[[Page H5645]]

let us move this vehicle and send it to the Senate and get it properly 
done and get it signed by the White House. This is not about procedure, 
this is about people. This is about caring for folks, for making the 
changes.
  Now, I have heard some people say that they do not want this to 
happen because they do not want to deny an accomplishment to this 
Congress. And I cannot believe a single person who takes the oath of 
office in this chamber would actually vote in accordance with that. I 
know there are 71 Democrats, one-third of the Democratic conference, 
who stood up and stood tall and took this vote for empowerment and for 
change and for hope and for opportunity; for helping people to have 
control over their lives, to build equity, to use vouchers for home 
ownership, to do all these great things; to stop pouring money down a 
rat hole, to say that we can use that money to help empower people, to 
give them a better life, to make sure they can clear out what has 
formerly been an area where crack dealers hang out, and to plant those 
fields so that the kids can play outside with playgrounds because we 
have given tenants the responsibility to control their own back yard, 
to manage their own development, to use their voucher for home 
ownership.
  This level of choice and empowerment is exactly what the most 
innovative people, both Republicans and Democrats that are out there in 
urban areas and poor areas and suburban areas, are doing right now. 
They need this bill. Do not raise another procedural obstacle just to 
say that we can be denied this opportunity to try to change lives for 
the better.
  Mr. WISE. Mr. Speaker, will the gentleman yield?
  Mr. LAZIO of New York. I yield to the gentleman from West Virginia.
  Mr. WISE. Just a question of the gentleman, Mr. Speaker. I am one of 
the one-third of the Democrats that voted for the bill, but it seems to 
me it is the Republican leadership that is responsible for appointing 
conferees and moving it to conference. Why has that not happened?
  Mr. LAZIO of New York. I would say to the gentleman that this is 
considered the best possible, most effective vehicle to get it done. 
The substance the gentleman voted for has not changed one iota. It is 
the very same bill that the gentleman voted for earlier.
  Mr. WISE. If the gentleman will continue to yield, why has it not it 
gone to conference? The Republican leadership had the ability to 
appoint the conferees and move it to conference. I voted on that a few 
months ago.
  Mr. LAZIO of New York. Reclaiming my time, Mr. Speaker, as the 
gentleman knows, it takes two houses, both the other body and this 
body, to get the job done. And it is the opinion of both bodies that 
this is the best vehicle to move it along, on the leadership on both 
sides. So I would ask that my colleagues not put up artificial 
procedural obstacles in the way of getting the job done, of doing the 
right thing.
  I would also mention, for those people who have said, oh, this is a 
lot of work that is on an appropriations bill, but in the last 
appropriations bill that was done there were a lot of folks who stood 
for the so-called mark-to-market section (8) authorizing language, with 
over 100 pages of authorizing language on an appropriation vehicle. I 
see the gentleman from Massachusetts, who supported that, using that 
appropriations vehicle to authorize. Now, I was not, quite frankly, in 
support of that, but that was the precedent that was set in the last 
Congress.
  My message now is, let us get the job done. Let us not leave people 
behind. We know what to do. Let us not play games. Let us get the job 
done for America.

                              {time}  1100

  Mr. HALL of Ohio. Mr. Speaker, I yield 5 minutes to the very 
distinguished gentleman from Ohio (Mr. Stokes).
  Mr. STOKES. Mr. Speaker, I rise in strong opposition to this rule. It 
makes a mockery of the legislative procedures that have governed the 
debate on appropriations bills for decades.
  It used to be the case that the Committee on Appropriations went to 
the Committee on Rules primarily to get their bills protected from 
points of order due to lack of authorizing legislation. In this rule, 
however, we have provisions left unprotected for which waivers were 
sought by the Committee on Appropriations.
  Incredibly, reams of authorizing legislation that have no business in 
an appropriations measure are being included, over the objections of 
the Committee on Appropriations. I suppose, looking at the track record 
of the Committee on Banking and Financial Services during the past two 
Congresses, it is not surprising that they should adopt this approach.
  Virtually every significant housing legislation provision passed 
during the past 3\1/2\ years have been contained in an appropriations 
bill. They have not been able to do their job. This year, they seem to 
be admitting defeat earlier than usual. It is one thing to include 
major legislative provisions in appropriations conference reports near 
the end of a session when time is running short. To do so at this stage 
of the process is a major admission of failure.
  I agree that there is a real need for enactment of housing 
authorizations. However, I and a number of other Members of the House 
and Senate and, perhaps most significantly, the President have a 
serious disagreement with certain provisions of the House-passed bill 
that the rules seek to attach to this appropriations bill.
  The only way these issues can be resolved and a housing bill signed 
into law is through negotiation and compromise. I am told by my 
counterparts on the authorizing committee that such negotiations had 
been proceeding in a serious and constructive way, at least until this 
maneuver. Passing essentially the same bill through the House a second 
time does nothing to advance the process. About all it does is poison 
the well of good will.
  Perhaps the backers of this negotiation think they can use the 
appropriations process to cram an unacceptable bill down the throats of 
the President and congressional opponents. In the end, I doubt that 
they will succeed in doing so. But I fear that they may drag down our 
appropriations bill in the attempt.
  A second major problem is that the rule selectively picks just a 
couple of provisions in the committee-reported bill to leave 
unprotected against points of order. One of these is the provision 
raising the limits on FHA-insured mortgages. I believe that what the 
Committee on Appropriations did was a constructive step towards 
expanding home ownership. Some may disagree.
  But if the rule had simply provided protection against points of 
order, anyone who disagreed with that provision would have a chance to 
offer an amendment to strike it and the House would have a debate and a 
vote. I suspect our position would prevail, since the majority of the 
membership of the House has written to the Committee on Appropriations 
asking that an FHA loan limit provision be included in the bill.
  But, in any event, the House should have had a chance to work its 
will on this issue. This rule denies the House that opportunity by 
allowing any individual Member to remove the provision from the bill 
simply by raising a point of order.
  In summary, the bill reported by our committee is a reasonable bill, 
though not without its own flaws. On balance, the appropriations bill 
is worthy of support. Unfortunately, the rule is basically a mechanism 
for turning our bill into something less reasonable and less worthy of 
support.
  I urge a no vote on the rule.
  Mr. LINDER. Mr. Speaker, I yield 3 minutes to the gentleman from 
Michigan (Mr. Knollenberg).
  Mr. KNOLLENBERG. Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentleman for yielding me 
the time.
  Mr. Speaker, I rise in support of the rule for the VA-HUD 
appropriations bill for fiscal year 1999. Regardless of what we might 
hear, it is an open and fair rule. This rule does nothing to stop an 
open debate on a very important issue, and that is the Kyoto Protocol. 
Let me repeat that. The rule does nothing to stop an open debate on a 
very important issue, the Kyoto Protocol. I am pleased that the we can 
have an open debate on this issue as the rule provides.
  There are those who want to circumvent the U.S. Constitution by 
implementing a treaty before it is ratified by the Senate. The VA-HUD 
appropriations bill limits funding to implement

[[Page H5646]]

the Kyoto treaty until the Senate ratification, period.
  We need this funding limitation. The Kyoto Protocol would have a 
devastating impact on this economy of ours. It would kill millions of 
jobs. And I think everybody realizes that it will kill jobs. Even the 
administration realizes that. That will result in higher prices and 
significantly a lower standard of living for Americans.
  As a result, there is strong opposition to this agreement in 
Congress. And the President simply does not have the votes to win 
ratification in the Senate. Faced with this dilemma, the Clinton 
administration is attempting to circumvent the will of Congress by 
implementing the Kyoto treaty bit by bit, piece by piece, through a 
series of regulatory actions.
  Now, it is important to note, what does the Kyoto funding limitation 
do? It prohibits only certain categories of regulatory activities that 
have the purpose of implementing the Kyoto Protocol without Senate 
ratification. It applies only to the development, proposal, and 
finalization of rules, regulations, orders, and decrees that implement 
the unratified Protocol or that are designed for such implementation.
  What does the Kyoto funding limitation not do? Contrary to some 
claims, it is important to note that this language does not affect 
existing programs and ongoing activities to carry out the United 
States' voluntary commitments under the 1992 Climate Change Convention. 
It does not hinder legitimate climate science research activities or 
studies or existing funding for research and development. In fact, all 
other EPA actions and programs funded by this bill for environmental 
and other purposes, including climate change, are not affected by this 
limitation.
  So I would urge my colleagues on both sides, please oppose any 
attempts to strike the Kyoto funding limitation and support the rule 
for consideration of VA-HUD.
  Mr. HALL of Ohio. Mr. Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman 
from New York (Mr. LaFalce).
  (Mr. LaFALCE asked and was given permission to revise and extend his 
remarks.)
  Mr. LaFALCE. Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentleman for yielding me the 
time.
  Mr. Speaker, I wish to commend the chairman and distinguished ranking 
member of the Subcommittee on VA, HUD and Independent Agencies, the 
gentleman from California (Mr. Lewis) and the gentleman from Ohio (Mr. 
Stokes), for the excellent job that they have done in reporting out a 
very good appropriations bill, an appropriations bill that if it were 
the bill that was reported out of subcommittee, we probably all would 
be able to support in both a bipartisan and perhaps even a unanimous 
fashion today. Unfortunately, that is not the bill that has come to the 
floor of the House of Representatives.
  The Committee on Rules has not only blurred the distinction between 
the appropriations and the authorizing process, they have obliterated 
it. The fact of the matter is the authorizing committees in both the 
House and the Senate have acted. The House authorizing committee acted 
in May of 1997. The Senate authorizing committee acted on a public 
housing bill in June of 1997, the full Senate and the full House that 
is; and conferees still have not been appointed.
  The gentleman from Georgia (Mr. Gingrich) and Senate Majority Leader 
Lott have not appointed conferees to bills that were passed in the 
spring of 1997. And now the Committee on Rules, in an obliteration of 
the authorizing process, is attempting to foist upon us in the 
appropriations process a very controversial bill, a bill that is 
controversial not only within this House, a bill that is controversial 
within the Senate, a bill on which Republicans in the Senate and 
Republicans in the House have serious disagreement over.
  I ask this body to preserve the integrity of the authorizing process. 
Both bodies, the House and the Senate, have acted. Let the leaders 
appoint conferees and let the conferees from the authorizing committee 
resolve our differences and then let us pass an appropriations bill 
that does what an appropriations bill is supposed to do, appropriate.
  I rise today to join the distinguished ranking member of the Rules 
Committee, Representative Moakley, in opposition to the rule for 
consideration of H.R. 4194, the fiscal year 1999 Appropriations bill 
for the Veterans Administration, the Department of Housing and Urban 
Development and Independent Agencies. While I believe H.R. 4194 is a 
good bill and could garner strong bipartisan support, I am opposed to 
the rule's treatment of Chairman Leach's amendment to include H.R. 2, 
the draconian reform to our Federal housing programs, in this funding 
bill.
  The Rule before us violates the principles of this House. The House 
is divided into committees. As I see it, the work of those committees 
is divided into two categories: Appropriating and authorizing. 
Authorizers, such as myself, are charged with considering programmatic 
policy questions, while appropriators are charged with making difficult 
funding decisions within the constraints of the budget resolution. 
These are two very distinct roles. In recognition of that fact, the 
Rules of the House permit Members to strike authorizing provisions 
included in--or offered as an amendment to--appropriations bills by 
raising points of order against such provisions.
  Nonetheless, it appears that the Rule before us applies that 
longstanding policy only when it is convenient to the majority party. 
For instance, the Rule waives points of order against Chairman Leach's 
amendment to incorporate H.R. 2, the draconian public and assisted 
housing reform bill into the HUD-VA bill. Despite the fact that the 
House and Senate Democrats, along with the Administration, have been 
negotiating to resolve the contentious policy issues raised in H.R. 2 
and its Senate counterpart, S. 462, the Rule facilitates efforts to 
circumvent negotiations even at the risk of frustrating progress on 
this important funding bill. Today, we should be focusing our attention 
on the important bill at hand, H.R. 4194, leaving contentious public 
housing issues to be debated and resolved separately.
  While consideration of H.R. 2 is protected, the rule fails to waive 
points of order against provisions included in the bill raising the 
loan limits for the Federal Housing Administration's single family loan 
program. The FHA amendment, another authorizing provision, was 
unanimously approved by the Appropriations Committee and pays for an 
increase of $80 million for veterans research and the National Science 
Foundation. It is a priority of the Administration and reflects a good 
compromise between the Administration's request and private sector 
interests. Nevertheless, the Rule fails to waive points of order 
against that authorizing provision.
  The Rule's treatment of H.R. 2 and the amendment to the FHA loan 
limit defies logic. Under H.R. 2, 709,000 fewer low-income households 
would be provided Federal housing assistance in 10 years. Striking the 
increase in FHA loan limits would put at risk the dream of 
homeownership for many potential homeowners. As I see it, the real 
result we will have in proceeding in this manner is to ensure that the 
rich get richer and the poor get poorer.
  Again, I urge my colleagues to join me in firm opposition to this 
rule on H.R. 4194.
  Mr. LINDER. Mr. Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from 
Delaware (Mr. Castle).
  Mr. CASTLE. Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentleman for yielding me the 
time.
  I do rise in support of this rule, particularly that portion of it 
which provides for the consideration of the amendment by the gentleman 
from Iowa (Mr. Leach) and the gentleman from New York (Mr. Lazio) to 
replace the 1937, 1937, United States Housing Act with a House-passed, 
already-passed version of H.R. 2.
  H.R. 2 contains many important provisions that would significantly 
decentralize the public housing system and require greater community 
involvement from public housing residents.
  Under the measure, local housing agencies could give residents a 
choice of paying either 30 percent of their income in rent or paying a 
flat rent agreed to by the tenant and the housing officials. This would 
benefit tenants because the rent would not necessarily increase with 
their income, as occurs now.
  The bill would also require most unemployed residents of public 
housing or subsidized rental units to perform at least 8 hours of 
community service.
  Additionally, in order to infuse more of the working poor into public 
housing, the bill would require that no more than 35 percent of new 
tenants be people who earn 30 percent or less of an area's median 
income.
  I would also urge support for three measures I authored which were 
included in the final version of H.R. 2.
  First, the bill would reward housing authorities, like those in 
Delaware, that are innovative and efficient.

[[Page H5647]]

  Secondly, the bill would allow housing authorities to screen out sex 
offenders who might endanger children living in public housing.
  And, finally, it allows high-performing housing authorities like the 
Dover and Delaware State Housing Authorities to use funds from 
disposition housing, that is, when housing is torn down, to purchase 
replacement scattered site dwellings.
  As my colleagues may recall, H.R. 2 passed this Chamber 
overwhelmingly 293-132 on May 14, 1997. So I have every confidence that 
this bill will not weigh down the VA-HUD appropriations bill.
  Furthermore, when Congress has a clear picture of what final reforms 
will be made to the public housing system, it can make better informed 
decisions of how much money to appropriate to that program.
  For all the Members who share the goal of transforming public housing 
from a way of life into a better life for low-income children and their 
families, I urge them to support this amendment.
  Mr. HALL of Ohio. Mr. Speaker, I yield 3 minutes to the gentleman 
from Massachusetts (Mr. Kennedy).
  Mr. KENNEDY of Massachusetts. Mr. Speaker, first of all, I wanted to 
thank both the chairman, the gentleman from California (Mr. Lewis), as 
well as the ranking member, the gentleman from Ohio (Mr. Stokes), for 
the very hard work that they have done on attempting to bring to the 
House floor the bill that I had hoped to support, a bill that would 
have put $100 million into new vouchers under the section 8 program, a 
bill that would have put $150 million new money into the homelessness, 
a bill that would have put $500 million into the public housing 
modernization program, and a bill that would have put $10 million into 
the Fair Housing Enforcement Program.
  Unfortunately, despite the fact that that attempt was made, there was 
sort of a sneak attack that took place yesterday morning in the 
Committee on Rules. It was a sneak attack done by the chairman of the 
Committee on Housing who attempted to circumvent the process, without 
any pride of his own authorship, of being able to get a bill out of our 
committee and onto the House floor in proper manner. But instead, 
because he cannot work out a compromise with the House and Senate and 
the administration on a bill that he has put forth that is far too 
radical for people to be able to accept in terms of the number of poor 
people that are going to be thrown out on the street, the fact that 
hundreds and hundreds of thousands, our estimate at HUD is over 
700,000, very, very poor people will be put out on the street. And that 
is what is going on here.
  We are doing nothing more than saying to the poorest of the poor that 
they do not count, they do not matter, that what we care about is 
making sure that the buildings look good.
  Well, listen, folks, this is not about whether or not everybody can 
walk around and go back home and say, gosh, public housing looks 
terrific because now we have moderate-income people in public housing. 
We have got to make sure that we do not abandon the poor, and that is 
what this bill will do.
  Do not turn our back on the poor. It is a terrible thing to do. 
Please reach into our conscience and recognize, yes, we can go back and 
get all sorts of kudos for cleaning it up, but if the price of cleaning 
it up is throwing out the people that live there, we have not 
accomplished anything. They might look good to their constituents, but 
in their heart, they know what they have done is wrong. Vote against 
this bill. It is wrong-headed, and it is wrong-hearted.

                              {time}  1115

  I would also like to point out, Mr. Speaker, that in another attack 
on the legislation that had been, I think, evenhanded and worked out by 
both the gentleman from California (Mr. Lewis) and the gentleman from 
Ohio (Mr. Stokes), there were provisions to raise the loan limits on 
the FHA program. Those are critically important so that we do not 
continue to keep the FHA program totally targeted towards very, very 
poor people and not allow some people that live in more moderate-income 
neighborhoods to be able to participate.
  That provision, which 230 Members of this House, both Democrat and 
Republican, supported, has now been stripped out of the bill. A point 
of order is going to be made against it, and we will lose it. As a 
result of that we are going to see FHA weakened, we are going to see 
the ability of our country to be able to put forth meaningful housing 
programs hurt, and I just think that if we are going to do this, we had 
a process of negotiation that we were all participating in, we were 
close to an agreement; if we could have allowed that to continue to go 
forward, we could have avoided the mess that is going to occur on the 
House floor for the rest of the day today.
  Mr. HALL of Ohio. Mr. Speaker, I yield 3 minutes to the gentlewoman 
from Connecticut (Ms. DeLauro).
  Ms. DeLAURO. Mr. Speaker, the VA HUD appropriations bill contains 
bipartisan legislation that I introduced with the gentleman from New 
Jersey (Mr. Andrews) and the gentleman from Pennsylvania (Mr. Weldon), 
two of this Congress' experts on fire safety. It would direct the 
Consumer Product Safety Commission to reinstate fire standards which 
governed children's sleepwear, kept our children, kept our kids, safe 
for more than 25 years.
  A coalition of health and safety groups, including the American Burn 
Association, the National Fire Protection Association, the Coalition 
for American Trauma Care, the American College of Surgeons, the 
American Public Health Association, the Emergency Nurses Association, 
all of them support the return to the previous fire safety standards 
because they know how important it is to protect our children from 
devastating burn injuries.
  During the committee consideration of the bill, the chairman of the 
committee agreed and promised to ensure that this legislation would be 
protected in this bill, that our kids would be protected. 
Unfortunately, unfortunately, the Republican leadership in this House 
broke that agreement made by one of their own committee chairs.
  Mr. Speaker, I strongly oppose this rule because it breaks that 
agreement which has protected an amendment to save children in this 
country from fire burns and from death. For 25 years children's 
sleepwear was held to a higher standards of flammability than other 
kinds of clothing. It made it so that they would self-extinguish after 
exposure to a small flame. Manufacturers were required to test every 
part of the garments, the seams, and trim and everything else, in terms 
of ensuring that high standard for our kids' safety. The National Fire 
Protection Agency estimates that there would have been 10 times more 
deaths associated with children's sleepwear without this standard.
  And when the Consumer Product Safety Commission eliminated those, a 
coalition of groups came together. People in the House came together to 
say let us reinstate those regulations so that our kids are safe.
  We had this piece of legislation, we agreed on this piece of 
legislation, and the Republican leadership in this House says, no, let 
us leave our kids unprotected and not make sure that this bill cannot 
be struck down in this effort.
  Where are we? Who are we committed to? Are we committed to special 
interests around this country, or are we committed to kids and to 
families in this country?
  This is a simple piece of legislation. It requires no money. It just 
says let us have the will to make sure our kids are safe and reinstate 
those regulations as it has to do with their sleepwear.
  Mr. Speaker, I oppose this rule, and my colleagues should vote 
against it.
  Mr. LINDER. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume.
  Mr. Speaker, the gentlewoman from Connecticut points up the 
flammability language in this bill, and there was a technical error in 
drafting it, and the money provided for the Consumer Product Safety 
Commission says $5 billion in the report. It was meant to be $5 
million, and I ask unanimous consent that that technical correction be 
agreed to.
  The SPEAKER pro tempore (Mr. Collins). Is there objection to the 
request of the gentleman from Georgia?
  Mr. HALL of Ohio. Mr. Speaker, I object.
  The SPEAKER pro tempore. Objection is heard.
  Mr. LINDER. Mr. Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.

[[Page H5648]]

  Mr. HALL of Ohio. Mr. Speaker, I yield 3 minutes to the gentleman 
from New Jersey (Mr. Andrews).
  (Mr. ANDREWS asked and was given permission to revise and extend his 
remarks.)
  Mr. ANDREWS. Mr. Speaker, I thank my friend from Ohio for yielding 
this time to me.
  I oppose this rule, Mr. Speaker, because of its outrageous assault on 
the consumers of this country. For 24 years it was a law of this 
country that when a shopper went into a store and thought about buying 
clothing for an infant, if the clothing was not treated in such a way 
that it would not burn, if it was not treated for flammability, we knew 
it, because there was a label on it, and we knew enough not to put a 3-
month-old or a 4-month-old down for the night in a crib with clothing 
that might catch on fire and burn the child to death. For 24 years 
emergency room nurses and arson experts and firefighters across this 
country said it worked.
  In 1996, for reasons that are beyond any of us that have any common 
sense, the Consumer Product Safety Committee changed that rule. It was 
a rule change that was opposed by the fire community, by the medical 
community, by the children's advocates of this country.
  This Congress decided to do something to fix it. The gentlewoman from 
Connecticut (Ms. DeLauro), the gentleman from Pennsylvania (Mr. Weldon) 
and I introduced legislation to put the old law back to where it was. 
Thanks to the efforts of the gentleman from California (Mr. Lewis) and 
the gentleman from Ohio (Mr. Stokes) and the members of this committee, 
we are moving forward that law.
  We thought today that we would have a chance to talk about it on this 
floor and vote on it, but for reasons that are mysterious and 
unbeknownst to me, we are not going to get that chance because later 
on, Mr. Speaker, here is what is going to happen. We get to the point 
of this bill where this consumer protection standard is presented. One 
Member, one, will have the chance to stand up and object to it, and it 
will be stripped out of the bill with no vote.
  Mr. Speaker, if there are Members who disagree with this law, and I 
understand in good faith that there could be, let them come to this 
floor, let them take this well, and let them argue their point, and let 
us put it up for a vote. The fair and reasonable thing to have done 
would have been to permit an amendment that would have stripped this 
provision from the bill and put it up for a vote. But the people who 
oppose this provision do not want their fingerprints on the opposition 
to this provision because they could not go home, they could not look 
their constituents in the eye and say, ``I just voted to weaken 
consumer standards for your children.''
  If my colleagues believe that is the right thing to do, then vote on 
it. My colleagues should have the courage to come to this floor and put 
their name on it.
  Mr. Speaker, this is wrong, and I believe the Republican leadership 
of this House, failing the defeat of this rule, which I urge, ought to 
have the courage to bring to the floor this bill on a stand-alone vote 
so all 435 of us can go on the record and explain to our constituents 
where we stand.
  If my colleagues ever wanted an argument as to why we need campaign 
finance reform, this is it.
  Mr. LINDER. Mr. Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.
  Mr. HALL of Ohio. Mr. Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman 
from Indiana (Mr. Roemer).
  (Mr. ROEMER asked and was given permission to revise and extend his 
remarks.)
  Mr. ROEMER. Mr. Speaker, I rise to salute my good friends, the 
gentleman from Ohio (Mr. Stokes) and the gentleman from California (Mr. 
Lewis), who I have the utmost respect for, but I also rise to oppose 
this rule and to plead with my colleagues for a fairer and more just 
allocation of the resources in this bill.
  Now we came to a historic bipartisan balanced budget agreement last 
year, and that makes many of our decisions in this Congress even more 
difficult, because while we have a balanced budget, now it is our 
obligation to fairly and justly spend the money within the budget. And 
I argue with my colleagues that spending on a space station, not the 
space program which I strongly support, the $13 billion, but a space 
station, is not just, right and fair to the rest of America.
  The space station started in 1984. It was going to be completed in 
1992 with a crew size of eight for a total cost of $8 billion. Today 
our international space station is going to be completed maybe in 2006 
with a crew size of maybe 6 to 8 people for a total cost of $98 
billion; from 8 billion to 98 billion plus.
  Now at the same time, and we will get into this debate when I offer 
an amendment, at the same time we look at this bill, AmeriCorps for our 
working people to go, with responsibility to go earn their money for 
school, is zero funded; $428 million is gone. The community development 
block grants for poor inner-city people, 80 million less than 1998. 
Veterans facility, major construction, cut by 20 percent.
  Do we want to fund the space station that is a hundred billion 
dollars in cost, or are we going to justly and fairly fund programs for 
the rest of America?
  Defeat the rule, and let us get a fair allocation of this bill.
  Mr. LINDER. Mr. Speaker, I reluctantly yield 2 minutes to the 
gentlewoman from Washington (Mrs. Smith), who is going to speak against 
the rule.
  Mrs. LINDA SMITH of Washington. Mr. Speaker, I do reluctantly speak 
against the rule, but I found out late last night that an amendment 
that I think helps us keep our word was ruled out of order, and, had I 
had enough time and understood what was happening this morning, I 
certainly would have talked to our leadership about it. I do not like 
to speak against rules because I know it is so hard to come up with a 
bill that is good, and there is a lot of good things in this bill.
  But a couple of months ago we started a process that was very 
disturbing, and we started it on the transportation budget. What we 
decided to do was use an excuse to cut veterans' health care.
  Now this was a bipartisan decision. It started with the President, 
and he decided we take a big cut into veterans' health care benefits 
and say, if someone ever started smoking when they were in the 
military, that they would not be covered. Well, that really was not the 
issue. They just wanted an excuse to cut veterans' health care.
  Well, Mr. Speaker, they did such a poor job when they hung it into 
the transportation bill, see, because they wanted the $10 billion plus 
to spend on their transportation projects, that it was done so poorly 
they had to redraft it and hang it on the IRS reform bill to make sure 
that they got these veterans' health care cuts in.
  Now everybody went home on the Fourth and promised if they could fix 
it, they would fix it, but it was in a bigger bill, and that bigger 
bill they just needed to vote for; transportation was so important. So, 
if they had been able to, they certainly would fix it.
  Now today we are after another vote, the IRS reform vote. Not only 
did they not fix it, as many people said they would do as they traveled 
around the Nation, but they confirmed it in, again, a rider, something 
put on in a conference that they are not real proud about doing out 
front, and, yes, this was bipartisan; conferences are bipartisan. Both 
the Democrats and Republicans went behind closed doors and negotiated 
and decided that they were going to again confirm a cut in veterans' 
health care.
  Now some say, well, it is just fair. If someone started smoking in 
the military, they should not get health care later in life. Now that 
is a different issue, if that were the only issue, but it is not the 
only issue. The real issue is it went to the bottom line of the 
veterans budget, and they cut money out.
  Now the veterans of the Vietnam war is growing, and Democrats and 
Republicans alike, and the President, can deny that people that fought 
in the Vietnam war are aging. Second World War. We can pretend their 
health care goes away, but it does not, and we made a commitment in 
this country to those men and women that fought for our country.
  Now today we stand here again, and this bill could have fixed it, and 
this bill does not fix it. So vote against the rule.

[[Page H5649]]

                              {time}  1130

  Mr. HALL of Ohio. Mr. Speaker, I yield 1\1/2\ minutes to the 
gentleman from New Jersey (Mr. Pascrell).
  Mr. PASCRELL. Mr. Speaker, it is a travesty when this Congress puts 
the interests of an industry over the interests of our citizens. I am 
ashamed that this is what is happening today.
  This rule not only subjects fire retardant standards for children's 
sleepwear to a point of order, but includes a special interest 
provision by the gentleman from Mississippi (Mr. Wicker) which would 
delay flammability standards for upholstered furniture.
  Mr. Speaker, this provision is not a good faith compromise. This is a 
provision which was drafted by the special interests, with no input 
from the Consumer Product Safety Commission or the National Association 
of State Fire Marshals. Yet, the staff of the gentleman from 
Mississippi (Mr. Wicker) felt they could tell other staffs that the 
fire marshals had accepted this compromise.
  Untrue. This is a serious problem here, just another example of 
misrepresenting this issue. We cannot put the upholstered furniture 
industry's interest above the public interest.
  I strongly urge my colleagues to oppose this rule and demand that the 
Consumer Product Safety Commission be allowed to continue their work on 
flammability standards and children's sleepwear. Say ``no'' to the $16 
billion upholstery furniture industry. Say ``yes'' to saving lives and 
preventing fires.
  Mr. LINDER. Mr. Speaker, I yield 1 minute to the gentleman from 
Mississippi (Mr. Wicker).
  Mr. WICKER. Mr. Speaker, I had not intended to speak on this rule, 
although I do support it, but my name was called, and I want to explain 
what the gentleman from New Jersey (Mr. Pascrell) was talking about.
  Mr. Speaker, there is a provision in this bill not to stop a rule on 
flammability, but to let scientists decide what the exact effect is, 
not only on consumers, but also on the people who work around these 
flame retardants. There can be very harmful effects to the workers and 
also to the consumers, and we need to let the scientists look at this. 
This provision provides for outside peer review.
  I never authorized my staff to say that the fire marshals supported 
this provision. What is true is that I have worked as member of the 
Committee on Appropriations with members of the Committee on Commerce, 
and they are now satisfied. So if someone said the fire marshals have 
signed off on it, that is inaccurate. What is true is that the 
Committee on Commerce does now support the provision.
  Mr. HALL of Ohio. Mr. Speaker, I yield 1\1/2\ minutes to the 
gentlewoman from Michigan (Ms. Kilpatrick).
  (Ms. KILPATRICK asked and was given permission to revise and extend 
her remarks.)
  Ms. KILPATRICK. Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentleman for yielding me 
this time.
  Mr. Speaker, I want to first commend the gentleman from California 
(Mr. Lewis), as well as our ranking member, the gentleman from Ohio 
(Mr. Stokes), for the work they have done in a bipartisan effort on a 
very good VA-HUD bill that I had intended to vote for.
  It is unfortunate that the Committee on Rules now saw fit to put H.R. 
2, our housing bill, into the HUD bill. I am a member of Committee on 
Banking and Financial Services, where H.R. 2 came out of. It is very 
controversial. The Senate passed it last year, as well as us, in the 
early part of the year. They have not been able to come to a 
conclusion, although they have been negotiating. It is a tough bill 
that should be debated on its own.
  The process that the Committee on Rules used to put H.R. 2, the 
housing bill, into VA-HUD is unfortunate. It is unfortunate because it 
circumvents the process. There has been a lot of work and effort put 
into the bill. It is a very important bill and has many things that 
need to be worked out.
  I urge my colleagues to oppose the rule. Let us support the chairman 
and our ranking member in their efforts. VA-HUD should go on its own 
merits. H.R. 2 should be debated. Let us oppose this rule.
  Mr. LINDER. Mr. Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from 
Washington (Mr. Nethercutt).
  Mr. NETHERCUTT. Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentleman for yielding me 
time.
  Mr. Speaker, I had a chance to listen for a few minutes to the 
comments of the gentleman from Indiana (Mr. Roemer) about the space 
station, and came over to the floor just to address that for a minute.
  I was in Huntsville, Alabama, a couple of weeks ago and had a chance 
to go to Marshall Space Center and look at literally the construction 
of the space station, the American portion of the space station, that 
is ongoing there as we speak. It has been a terrific project, and it 
has great application, I would submit, to medical research.
  There is high morale among the space station personnel who are 
employed by Boeing, the prime contractor, and others, but, more 
importantly, I see some great benefits in the future that will be 
derived from the use of this international space station for purposes 
of medical research.
  While I have the highest respect for the judgment of the gentleman 
from Indiana, I disagree with the gentleman on this one. This Space 
Station is going to lead the way in medical research, which is going to 
help cure diseases for those of us on Earth because of the kind of 
research that deals with microgravity. Microgravity offers a unique 
opportunity to study medical research and study diseases and cure 
diseases in our country.
  I got a good briefing. I encourage my colleague, the gentleman from 
Indiana (Mr. Roemer), to go to Huntsville, if he has not already had a 
chance to listen to the great presentations that are being made there 
and the great progress being made there, not just in medical research, 
but in technology.
  So I wanted the remarks of the gentleman from Indiana (Mr. Roemer) 
not to go unnoticed, because I see some great value in the space 
station.
  Mr. ROEMER. Mr. Speaker, will the gentleman yield?
  Mr. NETHERCUTT. I yield to the gentleman from Indiana.
  Mr. ROEMER. Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentleman from Washington State 
for yielding.
  While we often agree on some issues, we certainly disagree on this 
one. We had a press conference yesterday with two very, very eminent 
and qualified scientists, Dr. Park from Maryland and a Dr. Brown from 
Johns Hopkins, and both said, and we will talk more about this in the 
debate on the space station itself, both said that the space station, 
with its delays and its costs, are cannibalizing other very, very 
worthwhile science projects.
  Mr. NETHERCUTT. Mr. Speaker, reclaiming my time, that is 2 out of the 
about 10,000 that support this station.
  Mr. HALL of Ohio. Mr. Speaker, I yield 1 minute to the gentleman from 
New York (Mr. Hinchey).
  Mr. HINCHEY. Mr. Speaker, it is sad to see how this Congress has 
hardened its heart toward America's veterans. The latest expression of 
that is contained within this bill and the rule that controls it.
  The bill, first of all, makes inadequate provision for a growing 
problem in America with regard to veterans health care. It may be the 
result of so few Members of this House having had the opportunity to 
have the experience of serving their country in uniform.
  Whatever the reason, this bill deals inadequately with the problems 
of veterans health care, it funds veterans health care inadequately, 
and, furthermore, it makes provisions to transfer inadequate funds 
inappropriately and discriminately against the interests of veterans.
  There are many reasons why this bill should be defeated, but 
particularly, today, as our veterans from World War II, from Korea, and 
even Vietnam are aging, and the illnesses, physical and psychological, 
which they suffered as a result of those conflicts are expressing 
themselves more deeply, it is time that we pay attention to the needs 
of America's veterans and fund health care adequately.
  Defeat this rule if you care about the veterans of America.
  Mr. LINDER. Mr. Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to my friend the gentleman 
from New York (Mr. Solomon), the chairman of the Committee on Rules.
  Mr. SOLOMON. Mr. Speaker, as one who has also worn the uniform of the 
Armed Forces of this country, I take exception to what the gentleman 
just said. I suggest the gentleman go to the

[[Page H5650]]

White House and meet with the President of the United States, whose 
budget inadequately funded veterans benefits, not only in veterans 
benefits, but in the medical care delivery system in this country.
  This bill, and I want to commend the gentleman from California (Mr. 
Lewis) and the gentleman from Ohio (Mr. Stokes), who we are going to 
miss desperately in his retirement because of the job he has done, but 
Mr. Speaker, what we are doing is we are restoring the cuts that the 
President had recommended. Not only that, but in the Senate bill there 
is an additional $200 million added to the veterans medical care 
delivery system. That is why we need to vote for this rule and we need 
to vote for this bill today.
  Mr. Speaker, a number of years ago I sponsored the legislation which 
created the Department of Veterans Affairs. Before that it was an 
agency, and before that we had nobody sitting at the cabinet level 
negotiating for the veterans of this country.
  Back in those days we had, unfortunately, a Subcommittee of Housing 
and Veterans Administration and other agencies. I had legislation 
pending in the Congress which would separate out and create a new 
Subcommittee on Appropriations for the Department of Veterans Affairs, 
which is the second biggest department in the Federal Government beyond 
Defense.
  That is really what we ought to be doing, because now the veterans of 
this country have to negotiate with HUD and with all the other 
agencies, and with the space station and NASA in order for their fair 
share, and it just is not working out.
  But this bill before us today helps the veterans of this Nation, and 
it helps us get to the Senate where we will have a chance to come in 
with at least $100 million, if not $200 million, more than what the 
President had recommended in cutting, for our veterans in this country.
  So I urge Members to support the veterans by voting for this bill. 
Again I commend the gentleman from California (Mr. Lewis), standing 
over there in the corner, a great American who does a great job for the 
veterans, and the gentleman from Ohio (Mr. Stokes) over here.
  Vote for the rule and vote for the bill.
  Mr. HALL of Ohio. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may 
consume.
  Mr. Speaker, I have no further requests for time. I would simply say 
that I will ask for a ``no'' vote on the rule, as many of us over here 
and many of us on both sides consider this rule unfair in many ways.
  Mr. Speaker, I yield back the balance of my time.


                    Amendment Offered by Mr. Linder

  Mr. LINDER. Mr. Speaker, I offer an amendment.
  The Clerk read as follows:

       Amendment offered by Mr. Linder:
       Page 2, line 15, strike ``The amendment'' and all that 
     follows through ``line 3.'' on line 21 and insert the 
     following: ``The amendment printed in the report of the 
     Committee on Rules accompanying this resolution, as modified 
     by striking `$5,000,000,000' in the proposed section 425(g) 
     and inserting `$5,000,000', 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 except as 
     follows: page 88, line 16, through page 89, line 22.''

  The SPEAKER pro tempore. Under the rule, the gentleman from Georgia 
is recognized for the remaining 1\1/2\ minutes to explain his 
amendment.
  Mr. LINDER. Mr. Speaker, this amendment merely makes a technical 
correction in the last line of the report from the Committee on Rules 
that erroneously, by a typo, has put a $5 billion figure in there. It 
was meant to be $5 million. I tried to move this by unanimous consent, 
and it was objected to.
  The amendment further protects the language in the bill from a point 
of order that allows the FHA loan ceiling to go up.
  Mr. SOLOMON. Mr. Speaker, will the gentleman yield?
  Mr. LINDER. I yield to the gentleman from New York.
  Mr. SOLOMON. Mr. Speaker, as the Members know, the language on the 
FHA increase was protected. We were hoping we were going to be able to 
have a negotiating position with the Senate where we could get some 
meaningful reform in the public housing of this country. We now are 
going to accede to the wishes of some on this side of the aisle and 
that side of the aisle and further protect that language so it would 
not be subject to a point of order and be knocked out of the bill.
  Mr. LINDER. Mr. Speaker, I move the previous question on the 
amendment and the resolution.


                        Parliamentary Inquiries

  Mr. BARRETT of Wisconsin. Mr. Speaker, I have a parliamentary 
inquiry.
  The SPEAKER pro tempore. The gentleman will state it.
  Mr. BARRETT of Wisconsin. Mr. Speaker, if you would be kind enough to 
explain the procedure, we have an amendment here and we have an 
underlying rule. Is it permissible under the rules to move the previous 
question on both the amendment and the underlying rule?
  The SPEAKER pro tempore. That is a permissible motion.
  Mr. BARRETT of Wisconsin. Mr. Speaker, further parliamentary inquiry. 
Is the amendment that has just been offered included in the votes? Will 
we have one vote on both the amendment and the rule?
  The SPEAKER pro tempore. The amendment will be subject to a separate 
vote.
  Mr. BARRETT of Wisconsin. And when will that take place?
  The SPEAKER pro tempore. Right after the vote on ordering the 
previous question.
  Mr. LaFALCE. Mr. Speaker, I have a parliamentary inquiry.
  The SPEAKER pro tempore. The gentleman will state it.
  Mr. LaFALCE. Mr. Speaker, I believe there is going to be a separate 
vote on the amendment offered by the gentleman from Georgia (Mr. 
Linder) which will be separate from the vote on the previous question 
on the rule, as amended, is that correct?
  The SPEAKER pro tempore. The gentleman is correct.

                              {time}  1145

  The previous question was ordered.
  The SPEAKER pro tempore. The question is on the amendment offered by 
the gentleman from Georgia (Mr. Linder).
  The amendment was agreed to.
  The SPEAKER pro tempore. The question is on the resolution, as 
amended.
  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.
  Without objection, the vote by the yeas and nays on H.R. 3731 will be 
a 5-minute vote immediately following this vote.
  There was no objection.
  The vote was taken by electronic device, and there were--yeas 227, 
nays 195, not voting 12, as follows:
  


                             [Roll No. 285]

  


                               YEAS--227

  

     Aderholt
     Archer
     Armey
     Bachus
     Baker
     Ballenger
     Barr
     Barrett (NE)
     Bartlett
     Barton
     Bass
     Bateman
     Bereuter
     Bilbray
     Bilirakis
     Bliley
     Boehlert
     Boehner
     Bonilla
     Bono
     Brady (TX)
     Bryant
     Bunning
     Burr
     Burton
     Buyer
     Callahan
     Calvert
     Camp
     Campbell
     Canady
     Cannon
     Capps
     Castle
     Chabot
     Chambliss
     Chenoweth
     Christensen
     Coble
     Coburn
     Collins
     Combest
     Cook
     Cooksey
     Cox
     Crane
     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
     Goode
     Goodlatte
     Goodling
     Goss
     Graham
     Granger
     Greenwood
     Gutknecht
     Hansen
     Hastert
     Hastings (WA)
     Hayworth
     Hefley
     Herger
     Hilleary
     Hobson
     Hoekstra
     Horn
     Hostettler
     Houghton
     Hulshof
     Hunter
     Hutchinson
     Hyde
     Inglis
     Istook
     Jenkins
     Johnson (CT)
     Johnson, Sam
     Jones
     Kasich
     Kelly

[[Page H5651]]


     Kim
     King (NY)
     Kingston
     Klug
     Knollenberg
     Kolbe
     LaHood
     Largent
     Latham
     LaTourette
     Lazio
     Leach
     Lewis (CA)
     Lewis (KY)
     Linder
     Livingston
     LoBiondo
     Lucas
     Manzullo
     McCarthy (NY)
     McCollum
     McCrery
     McDade
     McHugh
     McInnis
     McIntosh
     McKeon
     Metcalf
     Mica
     Miller (FL)
     Moran (KS)
     Morella
     Myrick
     Nethercutt
     Neumann
     Ney
     Northup
     Nussle
     Oxley
     Packard
     Pappas
     Parker
     Paul
     Paxon
     Pease
     Peterson (PA)
     Petri
     Pickering
     Pitts
     Pombo
     Porter
     Portman
     Pryce (OH)
     Quinn
     Radanovich
     Ramstad
     Redmond
     Regula
     Riggs
     Riley
     Rogan
     Rogers
     Rohrabacher
     Ros-Lehtinen
     Roukema
     Royce
     Ryun
     Salmon
     Sanford
     Saxton
     Scarborough
     Schaefer, Dan
     Schaffer, Bob
     Sensenbrenner
     Sessions
     Shadegg
     Shaw
     Shays
     Shimkus
     Shuster
     Skeen
     Smith (MI)
     Smith (NJ)
     Smith (OR)
     Smith (TX)
     Snowbarger
     Solomon
     Souder
     Spence
     Stearns
     Stump
     Sununu
     Talent
     Tauzin
     Taylor (NC)
     Thomas
     Thornberry
     Thune
     Tiahrt
     Towns
     Traficant
     Upton
     Walsh
     Wamp
     Watkins
     Watts (OK)
     Weldon (FL)
     Weldon (PA)
     Weller
     White
     Whitfield
     Wicker
     Wilson
     Wolf
     Young (AK)
     Young (FL)
  


                               NAYS--195

  

     Abercrombie
     Ackerman
     Allen
     Andrews
     Baesler
     Baldacci
     Barcia
     Barrett (WI)
     Becerra
     Bentsen
     Berman
     Berry
     Bishop
     Blagojevich
     Blumenauer
     Bonior
     Borski
     Boswell
     Boucher
     Boyd
     Brady (PA)
     Brown (CA)
     Brown (FL)
     Brown (OH)
     Cardin
     Carson
     Clay
     Clayton
     Clement
     Clyburn
     Condit
     Conyers
     Costello
     Coyne
     Cramer
     Cummings
     Danner
     Davis (FL)
     Davis (IL)
     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
     Gordon
     Green
     Gutierrez
     Hall (OH)
     Hall (TX)
     Hamilton
     Harman
     Hastings (FL)
     Hefner
     Hilliard
     Hinchey
     Hinojosa
     Holden
     Hooley
     Hoyer
     Jackson (IL)
     Jackson-Lee (TX)
     Jefferson
     John
     Johnson (WI)
     Johnson, E. B.
     Kanjorski
     Kaptur
     Kennedy (MA)
     Kennedy (RI)
     Kildee
     Kilpatrick
     Kind (WI)
     Kleczka
     Klink
     Kucinich
     LaFalce
     Lampson
     Lantos
     Lee
     Levin
     Lewis (GA)
     Lipinski
     Lofgren
     Lowey
     Luther
     Maloney (CT)
     Maloney (NY)
     Manton
     Markey
     Martinez
     Mascara
     Matsui
     McCarthy (MO)
     McDermott
     McGovern
     McHale
     McIntyre
     McKinney
     Meehan
     Meek (FL)
     Meeks (NY)
     Menendez
     Millender-McDonald
     Miller (CA)
     Minge
     Mink
     Mollohan
     Moran (VA)
     Murtha
     Nadler
     Neal
     Oberstar
     Obey
     Olver
     Ortiz
     Owens
     Pallone
     Pascrell
     Pastor
     Payne
     Pelosi
     Peterson (MN)
     Pickett
     Pomeroy
     Poshard
     Price (NC)
     Rahall
     Reyes
     Rivers
     Roemer
     Rothman
     Rush
     Sabo
     Sanchez
     Sanders
     Sandlin
     Sawyer
     Schumer
     Scott
     Serrano
     Sherman
     Sisisky
     Skaggs
     Skelton
     Smith, Adam
     Smith, Linda
     Snyder
     Spratt
     Stabenow
     Stark
     Stenholm
     Stokes
     Strickland
     Stupak
     Tanner
     Tauscher
     Taylor (MS)
     Thompson
     Thurman
     Tierney
     Torres
     Turner
     Velazquez
     Vento
     Visclosky
     Waters
     Watt (NC)
     Waxman
     Wexler
     Weygand
     Wise
     Woolsey
     Wynn
     Yates
  


                             NOT VOTING--12

  

     Blunt
     Crapo
     Gonzalez
     Hill
     Kennelly
     McNulty
     Moakley
     Norwood
     Rangel
     Rodriguez
     Roybal-Allard
     Slaughter

                              {time}  1207

  Mrs. LINDA SMITH of Washington changed her vote from ``aye'' to 
``no.''
  Mrs. CAPPS and Mr. STEARNS changed their vote from ``no'' to ``aye.''
  So the resolution, as amended, was agreed to.
  The result of the vote was announced as above recorded.
  A motion to reconsider was laid on the table.

                          ____________________