[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.
____________________