[Pages H2687-H2696]
From the Congressional Record Online through the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]

PROVIDING FOR CONSIDERATION OF H.R. 1469, 1997 EMERGENCY SUPPLEMENTAL
APPROPRIATIONS ACT FOR RECOVERY FROM NATURAL DISASTERS, AND FOR
OVERSEAS PEACEKEEPING EFFORTS, INCLUDING THOSE IN BOSNIA

Mr. SOLOMON. Mr. Speaker, by direction of the Committee on Rules, I
call up House Resolution 149 and ask for its immediate consideration.
The Clerk read the resolution, as follows:

H. Res. 149

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. 1469) making emergency supplemental
appropriations for recovery from natural disasters, and for
overseas peacekeeping efforts, including those in Bosnia, for
the fiscal year ending September 30, 1997, and for other
purposes. The first reading of the bill shall be dispensed
with. All points of order against consideration of the bill
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. An amendment striking lines 8 through 17 on
page 24 shall be considered as adopted in the House and in
the Committee of the Whole. Points of order against
provisions in the bill for failure to comply with clause 2 or
6 of rule XXI are waived except as follows: page 3, line 1,
through line 9; page 10, line 3, through line 15; page 26,
line 8, through line 15; and page 33, line 14, through page
34, line 19. Before consideration of any other amendment it
shall be in order to consider the amendments printed in the
report of the Committee on Rules accompanying this
resolution. Each amendment printed in the report may be
considered only in the order printed in the report, may be
offered only by a Member designated in the report, shall be
considered as read, shall be debatable for the time specified
in the report equally divided and controlled by the proponent
and an opponent, shall not be subject to amendment, and shall
not be subject to a demand for division of the question in
the House or in the Committee of the Whole. All points of
order against the amendments printed in the report 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 fifteen minutes. During consideration of the bill,
points of order against amendments for failure to comply with
clause 2(e) of rule XXI are waived. At the conclusion of
consideration of the bill for amendment, the Committee shall
rise and report the bill to the House with such amendments as
may have been adopted. The previous question shall be
considered as ordered on the bill and any amendments thereto
to final passage without intervening motion except one motion
to recommit with or without instructions.

The SPEAKER pro tempore (Mr. Collins). The gentleman from New York
[Mr. Solomon] is recognized for 1 hour.
Mr. SOLOMON. Mr. Speaker, for the purpose of debate only, I yield the
customary 30 minutes to the gentleman from Massachusetts [Mr. Moakley],
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, I yield 1 minute to the distinguished gentlewoman from
Maryland [Mrs. Morella].

[[Page H2688]]

{time} 1100

(Mrs. MORELLA asked and was given permission to speak out of order.)

Eliminating Landmines

Mrs. MORELLA. Mr. Speaker, in the 9 months between the declaration of
the cease-fire last March and the signing of the final peace agreement
last December, not a single shot was fired between the forces of the
Guatemalan Government and the URNG guerillas. Nonetheless, the last
death of the war took place just before the signing when a 17-year-old
boy in San Pablo, San Marcos stepped on an antipersonnel landmine while
walking home.
In fact, every 22 minutes, someone is either killed, maimed or
permanently disfigured by a landmine. Twenty percent of the victims are
children. In Cambodia, where there are twice as many mines as there are
children, there are 40,000 amputees resulting from landmines, and the
figures continue to rise.
The fact is that AP landmines continue killing long after the warring
parties which laid them have settled their differences. Sometime early
in the next century, the last victim of the Angolan civil war will
probably be a child not even born when the war was fought.
It is time for this Nation to take leadership and to write to the
President and urge him to take the lead in implementing it.
Mr. SOLOMON. Mr. Speaker, House Resolution 149 provides for the
consideration of H.R. 1469. It is called the emergency supplemental
appropriation bill for fiscal year 1997 under an open rule. In fact,
this rule may be described as an open-plus rule.
The rule provides for 1 hour of general debate. It is equally divided
and controlled between the chairman and ranking member of the Committee
on Appropriations, and it waives all points of order against
consideration of the bill.
The rule further provides that the amendment printed in the rule
shall be considered as adopted. All points of order against the
provisions in the bill for failure to comply with clause 2, which
prohibits the unauthorized or legislative provisions in a general
appropriation bill, or clause 6, prohibiting reappropriations in a
general appropriation bill, of rule XXI are waived, except as specified
in the rule, and I think all my colleagues are familiar with that.
These exceptions relate to those legislative and unauthorized
provisions contained in the bill reported by the Committee on
Appropriations which were objected to by the authorizing committees of
jurisdiction.
In an effort to be as fair as possible to all Members and to respect
the committee system, the Committee on Rules followed its standard
protocol of leaving any provision to which an authorizing committee
objection was raised subject to a point of order, although there is a
question whether a matter dealing with the U.S. Mint currency paper has
the approval of all committees of jurisdiction. I personally have great
concern with this matter being in this bill.
As I read the bill right now, under existing law, companies that are
allowed to bid to produce this paper that our American dollar is
printed on have to be 90 percent owned by American citizens. This bill
before us is going to lower that to 50 percent, and I do not know about
the rest of you, but that raises tremendous concern to me because I do
not want some foreign company, it might even be Lippo or some other
Indonesian major conglomerate that might be coming in here and getting
a bid on this. And it means that this print, even though the U.S.
citizens might be more than 50 percent owning of this company, this
printing may be done in Indonesia or someplace else. But what happens
to security? What happens to counterfeiting? Have we really held
hearings? Do we know what this is all about?
Let me tell my colleagues something. There has been a lot of bad
information put out on this, but my colleagues better know what they
are doing or they are going to see counterfeiting running rampant
throughout this country, and their dollar is not going to be worth a
dime. My colleagues can tell I get a little exercised on this
particular subject, but during the debate I might have a little bit
more to say about that to some of our Republican colleagues on this
side of the aisle.
Now having said that, let us get back to the bill again. Specifically
this rule leaves the following unprotected provisions relating to
enrollment in the conservation reserve program, provisions establishing
exemptions to the Endangered Species Act for disaster areas and
unauthorized parking garage and rescissions of contract authority from
the transportation trust funds. And let me tell my colleagues they
better pay attention to that because what that might mean is that this
bill is no longer paid for; and fiscal conservatives like me that came
here 20 years ago and have been trying to bring some fiscal sanity to
this country are expected to vote for this thing and it is not paid? My
colleagues have got another guess coming.
The rule also waives all points of order against each amendment
printed in part 2 of the Committee on Rules' report. It provides that
these amendments may only be offered in the order specified. It shall
be debatable for the time specified in this report, equally divided and
controlled by the proponent and an opponent, shall be considered as
read, shall be offered only by the Members designated in the report and
shall not be subject to further amendment or a demand for a division of
the question.
Once these eight amendments have been considered by the House, the
rule also provides, and this is very important, for consideration of
the bill for further amendment under the 5-minute rule. What that means
is the rule grants priority and recognition to those Members who have
preprinted their amendments in the Congressional Record prior to their
consideration, if otherwise consistent with House rules.
The rule also allows the Chairman of the Committee of the Whole to
postpone votes during consideration of the bill and to reduce the vote
to 5 minutes on a postponed question if the vote follows a 15-minute
rule. What that means is we could have clustering of votes to make it
easier on Members to get some work done back in their committees or on
the floor without having to run over here every 10 minutes and vote on
a matter.
The rule waives points of order against all amendments for failure to
comply with clause 2(e) of rule XXI which prohibits non-emergency
designating amendments to be offered to an appropriation bill
containing an emergency designation. I think all of my colleagues
better pay attention to that too, because if they go down through this
bill they will find that there is a lot of things in here that are not
of an emergency nature, and my colleagues, get a hold of the Senate
bill and see what kind of a Christmas tree they have over there and
what we are going to be expected to vote on when coming back here on a
conference report perhaps earlier this week.
Finally the rule provides for one motion to recommit with or without
instructions.
So, Mr. Speaker, House Joint Resolution 149 is similar to the rule
considered yesterday, with three major differences. Are they listening
over there? First, the rule makes in order as the first of the
protected amendments a Kaptur-Riggs-Roukema-Roemer-Quinn amendment
relating to the WIC Program. Secondly the rule drops from the list of
protected amendments two amendments, the Gilman-Spence-Solomon
amendment relating to Bosnia, and also it drops the other Solomon
amendment dealing with the funding for the Nunn-Lugar Program. Again,
we might get into this debate later on, but what we have got is $400
million in a pipeline under Nunn-Lugar funding to help countries like
Ukraine and Kazakhstan that have already been denuclearized. They do
not even have any missiles pointed toward the United States with this
$400 million in here to just hand out to them for whatever purposes.
As I said yesterday, the bill is important, but there is a question
of whether the bill is paid for. If that question remains at the end of
this debate, I for one will not be voting for this piece of
legislation, and I would advise other Members not to do so either.
Mr. Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.
Mr. MOAKLEY. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume.

[[Page H2689]]

Mr. Speaker, I thank my dear friend, the gentleman from New York [Mr.
Solomon], for yielding me the customary half hour.
Mr. Speaker, I urge my colleagues to defeat the previous question on
this rule. As the gentleman from New York said, some parts of the rules
have been improved greatly, and I commend my dear friend, the chairman,
for getting this new knowledge overnight and to improve the rule so
that it is much more palatable to many of us. But some parts of the
rule have been improved, but still, Mr. Speaker, others still need
work, and if we defeat the previous question, we can get to work on
those other parts.
Mr. Speaker, I am very happy with some of the changes my Republican
colleagues have made to this rule. I am pleased to see the amendment to
restore WIC nutrition funding for 180,000 women and children is now a
freestanding amendment, and it gives credit, Mr. Speaker, it gives
credit where credit is due. It is back to being called the Kaptur
amendment, and justly so, because this Congressperson has worked so
hard for so many years on the WIC Program, and it is justly named the
Kaptur amendment, and that is the way it should be. Mr. Speaker, I
thank my chairman of the Committee on Rules for acknowledging this and
amending the rule to include it.
But I am not pleased that the currency provision has been protected
from a point of order, Mr. Speaker. I think a lot of my colleagues
agree with me and it is very important that American money should be
made by Americans and made in America. Under this provision our money
can be made overseas, and I am afraid that some countries might make
just a little bit more than we order. So I hope that the previous
question will be defeated and we can make those changes.
But most importantly, Mr. Speaker, despite the changes and despite
the greater number of votes this rule will get more than its
predecessor, it is still headed nowhere, and that is the real shame of
this whole matter, because Grand Forks, ND has been all but destroyed
and its residents deserve every bit of help that we can give them not
next week, not next month, but right now.
But my Republicans colleagues have added a poison pill to the
midwestern flood relief which all but ensures its doom. The poison
pill, Mr. Speaker, is an automatic continuing resolution which is my
Republican colleagues' way of saying please stop us before we shut down
the Government again. My Republican colleagues do not trust themselves
to get the Federal spending bills finished in time, and they are trying
to get out of their constitutional responsibility to do so.
Mr. Speaker, this automatic continuing resolution will cause all
sorts of serious problems. For instance, each month, each and every
month, it will keep an average of 500,000 women, infants and small
children from getting food under the WIC Program. It will cut college
aid by $1.7 billion which means that 375,000 students will be
eliminated from the Pell Grant Program. It will also cut educational
services for over 483,000 children and will cut up to 56,000 children
out of the Head Start Program. It will keep 60,000 veterans from VA
medical care. Mr. Speaker, the list just goes on and on and on.
President Clinton has said in no uncertain terms; in fact a letter
that he sent to the Committee on Rules yesterday stated that he will
veto this bill if it contains an automatic continuing resolution, and I
think that these students, these veterans, and these pregnant women
will all agree with them. But this did not stop my Republican
colleagues from inserting the automatic continuing resolution in this
bill. Mr. Speaker, badly needed flood relief is no place for political
gains, particularly when it endangers so many, so many important
programs.
I urge my colleagues to defeat the previous question, and if the
previous question is defeated, I will move to strike this poison pill,
the automatic continuing resolution and the provision that threatens
our children, threatens our students, and threatens our veterans, and I
will expose the currency provision to a point of order in order to
ensure that American money is made in America.
Mr. Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.
Mr. SOLOMON. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume.
Mr. Speaker, once again I am just kind of taken aback by the
statement of my good friend, the gentleman from Massachusetts [Mr.
Moakley]. He seems to be saying that we Democrats are opposed to this
continuing resolution.
Mr. Speaker, first of all, during the hearing we held we had a number
of Democrats come before the committee and ask us for this continuing
resolution because they remember when 2 years ago the Government was
shut down on two separate occasions for an extended period of time, and
a lot of workers were put out, were put out of Federal workers were put
out of work without pay, and this is an attempt to see that that does
not happen again. We are actually trying to help the President, and
that is why this continuing resolution which funds all matters that
have not been dealt with after September 30 of this year, it keeps the
Government functioning at this year, this current fiscal year's level
of spending.
Mr. Speaker, what more could one ask for?
I doubt very much if the President is going to stand up and reverse
himself, although he has been known to do that before, and veto this
bill because there is a continuing resolution. If he does, I guess we
would have no other choice but to bring it right back, repass it
without it, but then, Mr. Speaker, whose fault is it going to be if the
Government shuts down?

{time} 1115

It is going to be the President of the United States of America, and
I do not think that Mr. Clinton wants that to happen on his watch. I
certainly would not think so.
Having said that, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from
Pennsylvania [Mr. Gekas], the sponsor of this continuing resolution.
Mr. GEKAS. Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentleman for yielding me this
time.
I am astounded at the gentleman from Massachusetts. He deplores the
fact that if we, in this continuing resolution, make sure that last
year's programs would be funded at 100 percent, that the veterans, Head
Start, and other programs will suffer. I ask him whether he, the
gentleman from Massachusetts [Mr. Moakley], would agree that a shutdown
causes a 100-percent cut in all of those programs. That is, if the
Government shuts down, women, infants, and children get nothing in
their programs. The veterans get nothing in their programs. The
students get nothing out of the Pell grants. That is a 100-percent cut
in their programs because of the possibility and actuality of a
shutdown.
My legislation is a good Government effort to prevent shutdowns
forever. When our Founding Fathers in 1789 established this country,
this Nation, this Government of ours, they proceeded to be for all
time. We cannot tolerate a shutdown of 5 minutes, let alone 1 day or 20
days.
When the Desert Storm fracas began with Desert Shield, right in the
midst of Desert Shield while our young people were over there with
musket in hand ready to do battle, our Government shut down at the
hands of a Democrat Congress and a Republican President who could not
agree. Recently, a Republican Congress and a Democrat President could
not agree, and the Government shut down again, a 100-percent cut, I say
to the gentleman from Massachusetts, in all of the programs so near and
dear to his heart and which he related now as being endangered by the
continuing resolution.
We preserve 100 percent funding from last year's appropriations,
preserve Head Start, preserve women and children, preserve the
veterans, preserve the students. And the gentleman from Massachusetts
does not see, as I see, that a shutdown destroys those programs, puts
people out of work, cuts the stream of funding to our Head Start
children, cuts the stream of funding to our veterans, destroys the
capability to deal with Head Start because the President and the
Congress could not agree.
Mr. MOAKLEY. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume.
Government never has to be shut down if people negotiate in good
faith.

[[Page H2690]]

The last time there was a political decision made to embarrass the
President, it backfired. We are not going to put this on automatic
pilot, because what we do is we freeze the budget at last year's
status, which means that they do not grow as a result of more people
getting on those programs and inflation, and I think it is a bad idea.
We can negotiate and we can come to a conclusion so Government does not
have to be shut down.
The gentleman from New York [Mr. Solomon], my friend and the chairman
of the Committee on Rules, says that he is trying to do the President a
favor. Well, if he read the same letter I read, the President said, one
does not have to read between the lines, the President said that he
would veto this matter if the automatic continuing resolution was
included. It cannot be any simpler than that.
Now, I do not know if my friend across the aisle has a crystal ball
or tea leaves, but that is what the letter said.
Mr. SOLOMON. Mr. Speaker, will the gentleman yield?
Mr. MOAKLEY. I yield to the gentleman from New York.
Mr. SOLOMON. Mr. Speaker, I am a little confused, because I have all
of the press clippings of 2 years ago when the President complained
vehemently. I would say to my colleague from Massachusetts, why do we
not go to the White House, and the gentleman from Massachusetts can get
the appointment, and why do we not go and discuss it with the President
and let us clear this matter up.
Mr. MOAKLEY. Mr. Speaker, reclaiming my time, will the gentleman
admit that he received a letter from the President stating that he
would veto this bill if this were included?
Mr. SOLOMON. Mr. Speaker, if the gentleman would further yield, yes;
but I will say to my good friend, he knows that that was an 8-page
letter, which is highly unusual. So one has to read between the lines,
I would say to my good friend.
Mr. MOAKLEY. Mr. Speaker, I do not know what lines the gentleman has
read between, but I would just say, do not read between the lines, just
read the lines.
Mr. Speaker, I yield 7 minutes to the gentleman from Wisconsin [Mr.
Obey].
Mr. OBEY. Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentleman for the time.
Let me say that I think this rule is considerably improved from
yesterday for the following reasons: First of all, it no longer
contains the extraneous and, in my view, extremely misguided provisions
which would have dragged this emergency proposal into a protracted
argument on Bosnia and also would have effectively eliminated a very
large amount of funding for the Nunn-Lugar program, which has
eliminated 4,500 nuclear weapons in the former Soviet Union. I think it
is not in the national interests of the United States for us to have
bogged this bill down in either debate.
The primary purpose of this legislature ought to simply be to get the
emergency aid contained in this bill to the people who need it the
most, and we should not drag in extraneous issues. I am pleased that as
a result of the rule going down yesterday, adjustments have been made
to eliminate those two provisions.
I am also pleased that we have been told that in conference that the
McKeon amendment, which is expected to be added, will be fixed so that
we have a more equitably balanced commission to review the question of
long-term rises in college tuition costs.
I am also pleased to recognize that the amendment restoring full
funding for WIC will be debated and that it will be offered by the
person who has carried the ball on that issue for so long, the
gentlewoman from Ohio [Ms. Kaptur].
I think there are still some problems with this rule, however. I do
not personally intend to ask for a rollcall on the rule, I hope no one
else does on our side of the aisle either. But we do intend to
demonstrate our unhappiness with the rule by asking, as the gentleman
from Massachusetts said, that my colleagues vote against the previous
question so that we might offer an amendment that eliminates the
protection in the bill for the otherwise nonlegitimate language with
respect to U.S. currency printing and also, and most importantly, will
eliminate the waiver of the rule, clause 2, rule XXI, without which
this most troublesome amendment on a permanent CR could not in fact
even be offered, because it is clearly not germane to this bill.
Now, the question is asked, why are we against adding this proposal
to this bill? For two very simply reasons: First, because it will again
engage us in a protracted debate and it will prevent the emergency
assistance from arriving in North Dakota, South Dakota and other areas
where it is needed; and I think that that should not happen.
Second, if that provision were to be adopted, as I say, it is not
even germane under our normal rules. If it were to be adopted, what it
would do is to reward Congress for inaction, it would enshrine thee
status quo as permanent policy in the U.S. budget policy.
What it would do, for instance, is to see to it that initiatives
which are recognized on both sides of the aisle that need to be taken
in the area of education or in the area of strengthened medical
research at NIH would be wiped out. And yet the old, outmoded programs
which the Congress has determined that we ought to cut below last
year's level, those programs will still be protected. That is not a way
to produce an intelligent budget. It is Government without thinking, it
is Government without action.
As the Washington Post said this morning in its editorial, the effect
of this amendment would be to lock in place a new norm in which an
agency's appropriation would be frozen from year to year unless
Congress acted to raise or lower it. Because of inflation, the freeze
is equivalent to a cut each year in real terms. The President wants the
issue to be debated anew each year in the same way it has always been.
The no-shutdown provision is an attempt to load the dice without quite
saying so, a forcing device that has no place in a bill whose main
ostensible purpose is to provide food relief in the Upper Midwest.
I would simply say, lest there be any doubt about it, the President's
message contains the following sentence: The President has indicated
that he would veto the bill if such a provision were included in it.
That is the direct letter which we received, statement of
administration policy from the Executive Office of the President.
So I would simply say, what we are going to be asking people to do is
not to object to the rule itself, we will be asking people to vote
``no'' on the previous question on the rule so we can eliminate what we
consider to be two illegitimate waivers of the rules. If we eliminate
that, we eliminate much of the controversy in this bill.
Second, if the CR amendment is adopted, we will then be asking
Members to vote ``no,'' because we feel that all that is, in addition
to having all of the faults I just described, its major short-term
problem is that it will simply delay for a significant period of time
our ability to deliver the emergency aid to the parts of the country
who need it.
Mr. Speaker, I would ask that we not follow what has unfortunately
become an all-too-regular process in this place of loading up these
emergency supplemental with items that do nothing except slow the
package down. This bill will not become law if that provision is
attached to it. We ought to recognize it. If we are interested in
bipartisan cooperation, that cooperation ought to start before
legislation is brought to the floor, not only after we go through a
protracted process, which incurs several vetoes and prevents needed aid
from going to the States who need it so badly right now.
Mr. SOLOMON. Mr. Speaker, I yield 3 minutes to the gentleman from
Florida [Mr. Diaz-Balart], one of the outstanding Members of this body
from Miami, and he has an extremely important amendment that will be
offered a little bit later on this bill.
Mr. DIAZ-BALART. Mr. Speaker, I thank the chairman of the Committee
on Rules for the time.
Mr. Speaker, I think it is known how strongly I feel about the right
of legal, taxpaying immigrants in this country to be treated in a
nondiscriminatory way with regard to the receipt of programs, the
eligibility for programs as essential as Supplemental Security Income.
I am very pleased that the Committee on Rules has made in order an
amendment, with the support obviously of the gentleman from New York

[[Page H2691]]

[Mr. Solomon] but also the gentleman from Massachusetts [Mr. Moakley],
the ranking Member, and the support of the gentleman from Louisiana
[Mr. Livingston], chairman of the Committee on Appropriations, and the
gentleman from Wisconsin [Mr. Obey], the ranking member, an amendment
to restore for the duration of the fiscal year the eligibility of legal
immigrants in the United States to receive Supplemental Security
Income.
We owe a very special debt, Mr. Speaker, of gratitude to the
gentlewoman from Florida [Mrs. Meek] for fighting so eloquently, so
selflessly and yet so tenaciously on behalf of this very vulnerable
population that this amendment addresses.
There are also a number of Members who have distinguished themselves
for a long period of time fighting for this issue on behalf of this
issue, on behalf of this very vulnerable population. This amendment
would not have been possible were it not for the leadership and concern
of the gentlewoman from Florida [Mrs. Meek], as I have mentioned, the
gentlewoman from Florida [Ms. Ros-Lehtinen], and the gentleman from
Rhode Island [Mr. Kennedy] and others.
I want to make a special recognition as well of the cosponsorship of
this amendment and of the leadership and the critical support of the
gentleman from Florida [Mr. Shaw]. He has been instrumental in making
this amendment in order, in facilitating the process moving forward,
and I wanted to publicly thank him as well for his cosponsorship and,
as I say, his leadership.
So I am very encouraged that this amendment did not receive any
verbal opposition at all in the Senate. It was passed overwhelmingly
with 89 votes in the Senate.

{time} 1130

I look forward to a similar degree of support on a bipartisan basis
in this House. I would hope that as contentious issues such as the CR
question and others are debated, that issues such as those do not
create a situation where a vulnerable population such as the legal
immigrants of this country who are facing not a natural disaster, not a
disaster by act of God, but rather by act of man, can be reassured
today that they will be taken care of as the budget process takes place
and a final solution is worked, a final resolution of this issue is
developed for their tranquility and their benefit.

Parliamentary Inquiry

Mr. MOAKLEY. Parliamentary inquiry, Mr. Speaker.
The SPEAKER pro tempore [Mr. Collins]. The gentleman will state his
inquiry.
Mr. MOAKLEY. Was the President's message a veto on this bill if we do
not knock out the continuing resolution?
The SPEAKER pro tempore. That is not a parliamentary inquiry the
Chair can answer at this time. The message will be read in due course.
Mr. MOAKLEY. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume.
I would just like to read the statement of administration policy
dated May 13, 1997, delivered to the Committee on Rules. On page 2
under the title ``Automatic Continuing Resolution,'' and I quote, ``The
President has indicated that he would veto the bill if such a provision
were included in it.'' It does not need to be interpreted. That is a
plain statement. That is what the President said.
Mr. Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the gentlewoman from New York [Mrs.
Maloney].
Mrs. MALONEY of New York. Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentleman for
yielding time to me.
Mr. Speaker, I rise against this rule. Mr. Speaker, last night the
Republican leadership ruled the bipartisan amendment I offered with the
gentleman from Connecticut [Mr. Shays], the gentleman from
Massachusetts [Mr. Meehan], and the gentlewoman from New Jersey [Mrs.
Roukema] to restore the Federal Election Commission funding and to
unfence this money so it could be used for investigations out of order
because the chairman said it was not an emergency.
But what is more an emergency than restoring the faith of the
American people in the election process? How can we restore credibility
in our elections process when this same body, under Republican
leadership, votes $12 to $15 million, including a slush fund, to the
Committee on Government Reform and Oversight for a partisan
investigation, and then, on the other hand, turns around and denies the
funding to the only nonpartisan, independent agency that is actually
empowered to investigate election abuses, find election abuses.
The Federal Elections Commission has come forward and said that they
need this money to get the job done for the abuses before them. This
money has been denied, yet this body has voted to give $12 to $15
million to a partisan investigation.
Mr. Speaker, I just would like to appeal to both sides of the aisle
to vote against this rule until we do the right thing, which is fund
the independent agency that is empowered to investigate. They are only
asking $1.7 million. They are saying they cannot get the job done
unless they get the $1.7 million.
Yet the leadership is denying them the money to get the job done and,
on the other hand, voting for a slush fund and $12 to $15 million for
the Burton partisan investigation. It is wrong. I would caution anyone
not to vote for this rule until the funding for the Federal Election
Commission is in the bill, and that the money is unfenced so that
proper investigations can take place.
Mr. SOLOMON. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume.
Mr. Speaker, I have been around here a long time, and how many times
have I sat here and listened to ``This only costs another $1.7
million,'' or another $2 million.
I would ask the gentleman from Indiana [Mr. Burton] how many times he
has heard that?
Mr. BURTON of Indiana. Mr. Speaker, will the gentleman yield?
Mr. SOLOMON. I yield to the gentleman from Indiana, [Mr. Dan Burton],
one of the most fiscally conservative Members of this body and a great
chairman of the Committee on Government Reform and Oversight.
Mr. BURTON of Indiana. Mr. Speaker, I would say to the gentleman,
hundreds and hundreds.
Mr. SOLOMON. Mr. Speaker, when we look at this bill, is that an
emergency funding matter? Look at the rest of what is in this bill,
look at the Senate Christmas tree. How many times have we heard, this
only costs an additional $1 million, $2 million, $3 million?
Mr. BURTON of Indiana. I would just like to say, Mr. Speaker, that
the comments of my colleague, the gentleman from New York [Mr.
Solomon], chairman of the Committee on Rules, are not lost on the
American people. They know that when you add $1.7 million, $10 million,
$20 million, $50 million, pretty soon it starts adding up into some
money. They get a little concerned about that.
One of the reasons why the automatic continuing resolution provision
at last year's spending level is so important is so we do not shut down
Government, No. 1, putting a lot of people's jobs in jeopardy in the
Federal work force, but in addition to that, to make sure that the big
spenders in this place do not continue to escalate the cost of
Government every single year, as they have in the past.
If we cannot reach agreement on a spending bill, rather than shut
down government, let us just fund it at last year's level for a while,
100 percent of last year's level. That is not bad. We are not hurting
anybody. They are still getting their paychecks. Government goes on. We
are not cutting anything, we are just not increasing it. So the
American people ought to know very clearly which side of the aisle
wants to continue to increase spending, increase spending, more, more,
more, all the time.
Mr. MOAKLEY. Mr. Speaker, I yield 1 minute to the gentleman from
Wisconsin [Mr. Obey], ranking member on the Committee on
Appropriations.
Mr. OBEY. Mr. Speaker, the comments just made by the gentleman in the
well were absolutely, totally incorrect. I would point out that one of
the objections we have to this permanent CR provision is that it would
also allow for the continuation of programs at 100 percent of their
previous level, even if this Congress has a bipartisan agreement that
these programs have outlived their usefulness, that they are wasteful,
that they are low priority, that they ought to be reduced so you have
more room for other programs that we have reached consensus on that
ought to be raised.

[[Page H2692]]

So this amendment has nothing whatsoever to do with saving money. The
only thing this amendment does is require the Congress to stop making
tough choices. It requires the Congress to stop thinking. It puts
Government on automatic pilot. It becomes the Bureaucracy Supremacy Act
of 1987. It does not have diddly to do with saving one dime.
Mr. SOLOMON. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume.
Let me just tell the gentleman, Mr. Speaker, he is absolutely
incorrect in his statement. He is trying to stand up here and say that
if his Committee on Appropriations passes the Health and Human Services
appropriation bill and it is signed into law, he is trying to say that
that will be funded at something less than what is agreed to by the
President.
That is absolutely not true. Any appropriation bill of the 13 that
are signed into law are not affected by this continuing resolution at
all. It is only those appropriation bills that have not been signed by
the President that would be affected by this continuing resolution, and
would keep the Government functioning at 100 percent of this year, not
last year or the year before, of this year's level of funding. That is
a fact.
Mr. OBEY. Mr. Speaker, will the gentleman yield?
Mr. SOLOMON. I yield to the gentleman from Wisconsin.
Mr. OBEY. Mr. Speaker, if the gentleman is going to quote me, I wish
he would use my words rather than his. That is not what I said. I never
indicated that this would apply at all to legislation which had already
passed.
My point is that with the bills that have not yet become signed into
law, you require 100 percent funding, whether we want to continue 100
percent funding or cut out those programs. Some of those old, outmoded
programs that the Congress might like to eliminate or cut, this
proposition requires that those programs be funded at 100 percent. That
does not save any money, that costs money.
Mr. SOLOMON. Reclaiming my time, Mr. Speaker, which programs are
those? I would like to hear them.
Mr. Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.
Mr. MOAKLEY. Mr. Speaker, I yield 6 minutes to the gentleman from
Massachusetts [Mr. Olver].
Mr. OLVER. Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentleman for yielding time to
me.
Mr. Speaker, we are considering the rule on H.R. 1469, which is our
emergency bill to assist victims of the floods in the upper Midwest. I
rise to urge all Members to vote no on the previous question, as the
ranking member of the Committee on Rules has urged us to do.
I urge that no vote on the previous question because section 601 of
this bill makes a major change in the Bureau of Engraving and Printing
procurement law, a change which has not been considered by either of
the authorizing committees that deal with such changes, neither the
Committee on Government Reform and Oversight, under the leadership of
the gentleman from Indiana [Mr. Burton], nor the Committee on Banking
and Financial Services, under the leadership of the chairman, the
gentleman from Iowa [Mr. Leach].
Clearly those changes in the Bureau of Engraving and Printing law are
legislating on an appropriations bill and should not be part of this
emergency flood victim relief bill.
Section 601 does two things. First, it requires the Treasury
Department to give capitalization subsidies to companies that are
interested in becoming new suppliers of the American currency.
Capitalization subsidies are cash payments for new equipment or a new
facility to manufacture paper. They could reach as much as $100
million.
Second, 601 changes the legacy of my predecessor, the late
Congressman Silvio Conte. The Conte law, adopted in 1989, requires
American currency to be manufactured by companies that are no more than
10 percent non-American owned, and 601 would allow the manufacturer to
be up to 50 percent foreign-owned.
That is not being done because American companies cannot compete. All
of these solicitations are open solicitations. In fact, in the
solicitation that just went out within this last month, I have a list
here that 56 American companies, 56 of them, American companies who
have been asked to compete and can compete on producing the American
currency paper. The provision is really designed, and carefully
designed, to allow the British currency maker, Thomas DeLaRue, to make
the American currency.
Thomas DeLaRue is a large company. It is more than a $1 billion
company. It does not need capitalization subsidies to come from
American taxpayer dollars. Furthermore, Thomas DeLaRue, that large
British company, the maker of the British currency, has a monopoly on
the supply of currency paper to the British Government. The policy of
the British Government is that no American company, and not even any
other British company, is allowed to bid on the British currency paper
contracts.
I think that the ultimate irony here of this combination of the
provisions in section 601 of this legislation, the ultimate irony is
that all of us are going to vote yes on an amendment that is being
offered by the gentleman from Ohio [Mr. Traficant], which is a buy-
American amendment.
Then we are asked, almost in the next breath, to allow capitalization
subsidies that could reach as much as $100 million to go to the British
currency maker so that they can make the American currency, albeit
within the United States, that being a subsidy that goes to a very
large company that is totally closed in its own processes within
Britain.

{time} 1145

Frankly, Mr. Speaker, I think that this is an extremely strange way
to balance the budget. I think it is an extremely strange way to
protect the integrity of the American dollar and the rest of our
currency.
I urge a no vote on the previous question so that the matter can be
considered and hearings can be held by the committees of jurisdiction
at the authorizing level, the Committee on Government Reform and
Oversight and the Committee on Banking and Financial Services.
Mr. Speaker, I urge a ``no'' vote on the previous question.
Mr. SOLOMON. Mr. Speaker, I yield 3 minutes to the gentleman from
Tucson, AZ [Mr. Kolbe], a member of the Committee on Appropriations,
chairman of the Subcommittee on Treasury, Postal Service, and General
Government, who would probably like to rebut this. I would be
interested in what he has to say.
Mr. KOLBE. Mr. Speaker, I rise in support of the rule on H.R. 1469.
I want to speak on the same contentious issue that the gentleman from
Massachusetts spoke, about section 601, which at least in part caused
the rule to fail yesterday.
This provision would open up the bidding process in the Bureau of
Engraving and Printing for the supply of paper, not the supply of
currency, the supply of paper which is used in making the currency.
Currently, and for the last 117 years, there has been only one
supplier of that paper for the currency in the United States. We will
have a full debate on this later when we get into the bill, and there
will be a motion to strike this particular provision. And that is
appropriate, because then we can have a debate on this issue.
I just want to set the record straight on a couple of things. The
chairman said earlier that there has been a lot of misinformation out
there. He's right. I think there has been a lot of misinformation.
The underlying bill that the gentleman from Massachusetts referred
was authored by his predecessor, our late beloved colleague, Mr. Conte.
It is Public Law 100-202, section 622. Section 622 of that law says
that currency paper must be made by an American-owned company and it
must be made in the United States.
Neither of those provisions are being changed in section 601 of this
bill. So this has nothing to do with ``Buy American'' provisions, which
require that a product be made in the United States. That requirement
applies here, and it must be an American-owned company as well.
What this amendment would do is clarify something that we adopted
last year, I might add, in recent language in our appropriation bill.
What it would do is clarify that when Congress said American-owned,
what it meant is that it had to be 50 percent or more

[[Page H2693]]

U.S. ownership. That ought to be an acceptable definition of American-
owned.
We think that there ought to be more than one company that is
permitted to bid on supplying paper. The gentleman spoke about 57
companies to which the bid had been sent to. He did not say 57 were
going to respond. Only one ever gets to submit a bid, and that's
because of the way it is structured right now. We have had no
competition in this process for the last 117 years, none whatever.
And the fact of the matter is that I think, as the debate will bring
out later here today, there is some real question about the current
supplier of paper as to the amount of money they have been making, the
amount of their profit and whether or not this is a reasonable profit
given the fact that there is the possibility of having real competition
here. We will be talking about that more.
Let me make it clear, this does not change the underlying procurement
law at all, does not change the provision that it has to be made in
America, does not change the provision that it has to be an American-
owned company.
One other thing I want to point out. It was said earlier that there
had been no hearings. Here are some of the hearings that have been held
in 1995, 1996, and 1997 on this subject. So there has been a lot of
hearings held on this particular subject.
We will get a change to refer to those hearings later. We will talk
about the capitalization subsidy. All of that can be thoroughly
discussed in this debate.
I do not want anybody to be misled about this. We are not talking
about foreign companies supplying our paper. We are talking about
American companies doing it and making it here in America.
Mr. MOAKLEY. Mr. Speaker, I yield 3 minutes to the gentleman from
Massachusetts [Mr. Kennedy].
Mr. KENNEDY of Massachusetts. Mr. Speaker, I rise today to support
the efforts by my colleagues, the gentleman from Massachusetts [Mr.
Moakley] and the gentleman from Massachusetts [Mr. Olver], to deal with
what I think is one of the more insidious provisions that I have seen
contained within an appropriations bill in some time here on the floor
of this House. To suggest that in an attempt to deal with the floods
that have so devastated much of America that we are going to insert in
some small area of this language an ability of the U.S. Government to
come and provide a huge hidden subsidy to one particular company that
is then going to have the ability to have ownership of this new company
come from foreign lands, that is then going to go about printing our
dollar bills, seems to me to be one of the most incredible attempts at
trying to reach into the pork barrel of the taxpayer dollars that I
have ever witnessed.
The truth of the matter is that right now the dollar bill is made by
a U.S.-owned company. The Treasury Department in many a meeting that I
have had, I used to chair the Currency Subcommittee in the Congress, is
very pleased with the work of Crane Paper. And for us to come in and
create this huge new hidden subsidy program and try to stick it into an
appropriations bill, I think, is unconscionable.
If the basic provision is that, whenever there is a single-source
contract that the U.S. Government has the capability of going out and
providing a brand-new plant and equipment to anyone else that wants to
come along and bid on that contract, I say, hey, maybe we ought to
support that. But maybe we ought to support that for the guys that are
bidding on the B-2 bomber. Maybe we ought to support that for people
that are bidding on the M-1 tank. Maybe we ought to support that for
the Bradley fighting machine. Maybe we ought to support that for all
sorts of single-source contracts that go on in the Congress of the
United States, not just one.
I would go back to the fact that I have had several meetings with
some of the highest levels of the membership of the Treasury Department
who have indicated time and time again their support of the current and
existing contract with Crane Paper. There has been no difficulty with
Crane Paper. They feel that they are doing a good job. This is just an
attempt by some group or another to come in and say, here is a contract
that we, a foreign-owned company, can grab. We are going to ask the
taxpayers of the United States to build for us, to pay us to build the
new engraving machine. Then we are going to use those taxpayer
subsidies to undercut a family-owned business that is doing a good job
making the currency today. This is an outrageous pickpocket of the
United States taxpayers' hard-earned money. I strongly oppose the
provision.
Mr. SOLOMON. Mr. Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from
South Dakota [Mr. Thune]. We are supposed to be dealing with an
emergency supplemental here. One of the Members most affected by it in
this Chamber or, I should say, his constituents is the gentleman from
South Dakota.
Mr. THUNE. Mr. Speaker, I thank the distinguished chairman of the
Committee on Rules for yielding me the time.
I thought as we had been going through this process, I have learned
that we never take anything for granted. I hoped yesterday that we
would be having a debate on this bill and then was very surprised to
discover that the rule in fact had failed. I would hope that today we
can pass the rule and get on with the business at hand, and that is to
get badly needed disaster relief to those around this country including
those in my own State who are desperately in need of it.
We have worked very hard, and of course the Speaker of the House, the
majority leader, and others of this body have toured to see firsthand,
to have an appreciation for what we are talking about here. It is very
important in my view that we get on with the business, and we have
worked constructively in my judgment in a very bipartisan way to craft
something that will bring badly needed assistance to the people in my
part of the country as well as others.
I would like to address a couple of questions that have been raised
about our amendment because I think it is important that we clarify a
couple of things. The first is there has been some question as to
whether or not this is exclusive to the Midwest, and the answer is, it
is not. If we will read the amendment, we will see that any area of the
country which in this particular time period is afflicted by this type
of a disaster or circumstance would be eligible for assistance under
the amendment.
The second thing I would like to address is there are some waivers in
the bill. We have worked with the Governors, respective States, and
local officials to come up with something that would provide them
flexibility. There are some waivers that apply specifically to this
particular disaster incident and also as well to this amount of money.
We are not in any way changing the Community Development Block Grant
Program in any way on a permanent basis.
We have also done some things which I think tighten up concerns
Members on my side of the aisle have had about this being misused. So
the parameters are fairly narrowly drawn.
Having answered those questions, I would be happy to answer other
questions Members might have. But I would really hope that we can get
on with this business and work in a very expeditious way. The clock is
counting. We have mayors here from the affected areas who are waiting
for this assistance, and I would hope that we can get to the passage of
the bill today.
Mr. MOAKLEY. Mr. Speaker, I yield 1\1/2\ minutes to the gentleman
from Wisconsin [Mr. Obey], the ranking minority member of the Committee
on Appropriations.
Mr. OBEY. Mr. Speaker, I had not intended to do this at this time,
but since the gentleman from South Dakota [Mr. Thune] is here, I would
like to get his attention to express a point of concern on his
amendment.
I do not intend to oppse the amendment of the gentleman when it is
offered later on in the debate because on our side of the aisle we
supported the President's original request for a supplemental
appropriation for community development block grant funding, as well as
funding for FEMA; and we were asked by the majority side of the aisle
to withhold on that for the time being, and we did.
I am happy that my colleagues have now seen fit to support the idea.
But I am concerned about a couple specifics in the amendment. As I
understand the

[[Page H2694]]

amendment, if reduces $1.2 billion for FEMA to $700 million, leaving
FEMA with many valid claims on its disaster relief fund that it may not
be able to pay.
I would say, in general debate, I think there are a number of
questions I need to ask the gentleman about his amendment, because if
they are not fixed up in conference, they will cause a substantial
problem for FEMA to FEMA's ability to deliver needed assistance around
the country. So I would appreciate if the gentleman would be prepared
to answer those questions.
Mr. THUNE. Mr. Speaker, I would be happy to do that.
Mr. SOLOMON. Mr. Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to my very distinguished
colleague, the gentleman from Huntington Beach, CA [Mr. Rohrabacher],
where they have the high surfs.
Mr. ROHRABACHER. Mr. Speaker, there seem to be a lot of waves being
created here today.
Mr. Speaker, I rise in support of the rule, but I will have to admit
that there have been some arguments presented by the other side that
deserve consideration today.
One of my central reasons for supporting the rule is that it contains
the Gekas amendment, and I know that some of my friends on the opposite
side of the aisle oppose the rule for exactly that reason. The Gekas
amendment is political insurance for the people of the United States.
People have flood insurance and they have fire insurance and they have
termite insurance. This is political insurance that the Federal
Government will not close down because of the political impasse between
the political parties.
It makes all the sense in the world to ensure that the Government
will continue even if there is a political disagreement of those of us
on the floor, as happened in 1995, when we passed our appropriations
bills; but because of the President's intransigence, he shut down the
Government; and because of his ability to communicate, blamed it on the
Republicans.
This would prevent that scenario and that finger-pointing from taking
place. However, let me add that I am very concerned that we will be
providing $8 billion in this bill, $5 billion to flood insurance
emergency funds, yes. That is understandable. Some more citizens are in
trouble.
But another $2 billion for Bosnia, $2 billion for Bosnia at a time
when our Secretary of Defense is talking about closing down more
military bases in our country? Our troops were supposed to be out of
Bosnia a long time ago. Many of us did not want those troops in Bosnia
in the first place. So that is very questionable.
Of course, we have also questions raised on the floor today about the
printing of the currency and whose company will be doing it, and I
think those questions should be answered. But I will say that, overall,
I will be voting for the rule. I think it is a good rule. But there are
some questions that will need to be answered before I will support the
bill on the floor.

{time} 1200

Mr. MOAKLEY. Mr. Speaker, I yield 1\1/2\ minutes to the gentleman
from Connecticut [Mr. Shays].
Mr. SHAYS. Mr. Speaker, I oppose this rule and I oppose this bill
because this emergency supplemental includes much more than
emergencies. But, more importantly, Mr. Speaker, if there are going to
be nonemergency items, then what was appropriated for the FEC, the
Federal Election Commission, of $1.7 million should stay in this
budget. This rule takes the money out.
I strongly oppose taking out the money for the FEC if we are to in
fact have nonemergency items in this bill. This rule would do that.
Mr. SOLOMON. Mr. Speaker, I yield 1 minute to the gentleman from
Delaware, Mr. Michael Castle, the former Governor of Delaware.
Mr. CASTLE. Mr. Speaker, I thank the chairman for yielding me this
time, and I will not take long here because this issue will carry on
with this whole business of this section 601 and this applying for the
paper of the currency of the United States.
I have been involved with this argument as the chairman of a
subcommittee that deals with this particular issue, and this issue is
much more gray than it is black and white. Essentially what is
attempting to be done in the legislation now, and the reason I support
the rule, is it is an effort to make sure that we will have fair
competition for this particular contract. It is as sole source a
contract right now as we can have in the United States.
There is a special sweetheart provision demanding 91 percent American
ownership. This is far beyond the Traficant amendment. It would fit
under the Traficant amendment the way it is trying to be fixed. It
would still be an American-owned company that would have to do this,
and it would be a company which would have its paper made here in the
United States of America.
What they are asking for, what they have had for several years now,
is a super buy-America provision, and we are trying to eliminate that
and provide a fair opportunity for everybody, including, I might add,
the present contract with the Crane Paper Co.
Mr. SOLOMON. Mr. Speaker, I yield 1 minute to the gentlewoman from
Miami, FL, Ms. Ros-Lehtinen, one of our great Congresswomen.
Ms. ROS-LEHTINEN. Mr. Speaker, several members of the south Florida
congressional delegation have been working on an amendment that the
Committee on Rules, under the leadership of the gentleman from New
York, Mr. Jerry Solomon, has made in order, that would postpone the
August 22 cutoff date of SSI payments to U.S. legal residents and
extend the payment of these benefits until September 30.
My colleagues from Florida, Mrs. Carrie Meek, Mr. Lincoln Diaz-
Balart, and Mr. Clay Shaw, and many other Members of Congress have
worked in a bipartisan manner to help legal residents who reside in
this country legally, who pay their taxes, who came here seeking
Democratic freedoms from tyranny or economic opportunity and prosperity
for their children.
It is these same individuals who are now members of our elderly
population who live in terror that their sustenance, their SSI
benefits, will be cut off. SSI benefits, as all of us know, apply only
to those who are over 64 years of age, blind or disabled. They are not
a free ride. They are a means of survival for our elderly and disabled
who have no other way to sustain themselves.
How can we, Mr. Speaker, as legislators and representatives of these
same people, their children and their grandchildren explain to them
that even though they have worked and paid their taxes and served their
country they will have to fend for themselves?
Mr. MOAKLEY. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself the balance of my time, and
I just want to say that I am very apprehensive anytime the gentleman
from New York follows me, but I will try to make it.
Mr. Speaker, if the previous question is defeated, I intend to offer
two amendments to the rule. The first amendment would remove the
protection in the rule which would allow foreign companies to bid for
the production of our paper for our currency.
As I stated before, I believe that American money should be printed
on paper made by American producers, and I feel that we in Congress
have a duty to do all we can to make sure that our currency is printed
on paper made in America.
My second amendment, Mr. Speaker, would strike the waiver from
amendment No. 7, which provides a continuing resolution. This emergency
spending flood relief bill is not the place for these types of
provisions.
I urge Members to defeat the previous question so that we may fix
this rule and move on to the vital emergency spending bill.
Mr. Speaker, I am providing for the Record information regarding the
text of the previous question amendment to H.R. 1469.

Text of Previous Question Amendment to H.R. 1469

supplemental appropriations

Text:
On page 3 line 4 of H. Res. 149, after ``waived'' add the
following: ``; except that points of order are not waived
against the amendment numbered 7 offered by Representative
Gekas and Representative Solomon''.
On page 2 line 15 after ``15;'' insert the following ``page
25, lines 1 through 21;''
____

The Vote on the Previous Question: What It Really Means

This vote, the vote on whether to order the previous
question on a special rule, is not

[[Page H2695]]

merely a procedural vote. A vote against ordering the
previous question is a vote against the Republican majority
agenda and a vote to allow the opposition, at least for the
moment, to offer an alternative plan. It is a vote about what
the House should be debating.
Mr. Clarence Cannon's Precedents of the House of
Representatives, (VI, 308-311) describes the vote on the
previous question on the rule as ``a motion to direct or
control the consideration of the subject before the House
being made by the Member in charge.'' To defeat the previous
question is to give the opposition a chance to decide the
subject before the House. Cannon cites the Speaker's ruling
of January 13, 1920, to the effect that ``the refusal of the
House to sustain the demand for the previous question passes
the control of the resolution to the opposition'' in order to
offer an amendment. On March 15, 1909, a member of the
majority party offered a rule resolution. The House defeated
the previous question and a member of the opposition rose to
a parliamentary inquiry, asking who was entitled to
recognition. Speaker Joseph G. Cannon (R-Illinois) said:
``The previous question having been refused, the gentleman
from New York, Mr. Fitzgerald, who had asked the gentleman to
yield to him for an amendment, is entitled to the first
recognition.''
Because the vote today may look bad for the Republican
majority they will say ``the vote on the previous question is
simply a vote on whether to proceed to an immediate vote on
adopting the resolution . . . [and] has no substantive
legislative or policy implications whatsoever.'' But that is
not what they have always said. Listen to the Republican
Leadership Manual on the Legislative Process in the United
States House of Representatives, (6th edition, page 135).
Here's how the Republicans describe the previous question
vote in their own manual:
``Although it is generally not possible to amend the rule
because the majority Member controlling the time will not
yield for the purpose of offering an amendment, the same
result may be achieved by voting down the previous question
on the rule . . . When the motion for the previous question
is defeated, control of the time passes to the Member who led
the opposition to ordering the previous question. That
Member, because he then controls the time, may offer an
amendment to the rule, or yield for the purpose of
amendment.''
Deschler's Procedure in the U.S. House of Representatives,
the subchapter titled ``Amending Special Rules'' states: ``a
refusal to order the previous question on such a rule [a
special rule reported from the Committee on Rules] opens the
resolution to amendment and further debate.'' (Chapter 21,
section 21.2) Section 21.3 continues:
``Upon rejection of the motion for the previous question on
a resolution reported from the Committee on Rules, control
shifts to the Member leading the opposition to the previous
question, who may offer a proper amendment or motion and who
controls the time for debate thereon.''
The vote on the previous question on a rule does have
substantive policy implications. It is one of the only
available tools for those who oppose the Republican
majority's agenda to offer an alternative plan.

Mr. Speaker, I yield back the balance of my time.
Mr. SOLOMON. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself the balance of my time and,
in doing so, let me just say that I have some concerns about this
entire issue and how it is on the floor here today.
But I just want all the Members to know, on both sides of the aisle,
that this is a fair rule. It is a rule that allows any Member of this
body to come on this floor and to offer amendments under free debate
without any restrictions whatsoever under the rules of the House. So
there is no question but what Members should come over and vote for the
rule.
As a matter of fact, on the continuing resolution, which seems to be
some question, this is not in any way locked in. This is a freestanding
amendment that will be offered, and every Member will have the
opportunity to come over and cast their vote on this continuing
resolution, which simply says that the Government will continue to
operate should the Congress not deal with all of the 13 appropriation
bills that fund the Government in the coming year. That, to me, Mr.
Speaker, is certainly more than fair.
I have two concerns about the bill itself, and that is that there are
a lot of issues in here that did not deal in emergency funding at all;
and, second, I am really concerned over this issue of the U.S. Mint
currency.
I want all my colleagues, when they come over, or if they are in
their offices now, to read page 25 of the bill. In page 25 of the bill
it says that we are lowering the requirement that companies that are
successful in being able to print or make the paper that our U.S.
dollars are printed on must be 90-percent American-owned, by U.S.
citizens. Ninety percent. This lowers that to 50 percent.
Mr. Speaker, I do not know how closely my colleagues have followed
this, but I advise all Members to go upstairs here on the top floor and
get some CIA briefings on what is happening throughout this whole
country with this whole global economy situation. We have these
megacompanies, some run by the Russian Mafia, others that are
questionable that come out of Indonesia, others directly controlled by
other foreign governments like China. I want my colleagues to
understand what is happening here.
We should all realize that if this is adopted and it becomes law,
that any one of these sort of companies that I have talked about,
Mafia-owned, that may be still U.S. citizens, that they can have access
to this paper. What happens to counterfeiting? What happens to the
value of the American dollar that people have worked so hard on?
We need to start thinking about this. This is a matter that does not
belong in this bill. It should be dealt with in an authorizing bill
that comes before this House. That is only fair.
Having said that, I want my colleagues to come over here and vote for
this rule. It is a fair rule.
Mr. Speaker, I yield back the balance of my time, and I move the
previous question on the resolution.
The previous question was ordered.
The SPEAKER pro tempore (Mr. Collins). The question is on ordering
the previous question.
The question was taken; and the Speaker pro tempore announced that
the ayes appeared to have it.
Mr. MOAKLEY. 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.
Pursuant to the provisions of clause 5 of rule XV, the Chair
announces that he will reduce to a minimum of 5 minutes the period of
time within which a vote by electronic device, if ordered, will be
taken on the question of agreeing to the resolution.
The vote was taken by electronic device, and there were--yeas 228,
nays 196, not voting 9, as follows:

[Roll No. 129]

YEAS--228

Aderholt
Archer
Armey
Bachus
Baker
Ballenger
Barr
Barrett (NE)
Bartlett
Barton
Bass
Bateman
Bereuter
Bilbray
Bilirakis
Bliley
Blunt
Boehlert
Boehner
Bonilla
Bono
Brady
Bryant
Bunning
Burr
Burton
Buyer
Callahan
Calvert
Camp
Campbell
Canady
Cannon
Castle
Chabot
Chambliss
Chenoweth
Christensen
Coble
Coburn
Collins
Combest
Cook
Cooksey
Cox
Crane
Crapo
Cubin
Cunningham
Davis (VA)
Deal
DeLay
Diaz-Balart
Dickey
Dingell
Doolittle
Dreier
Duncan
Dunn
Ehlers
Ehrlich
Emerson
English
Ensign
Everett
Ewing
Fawell
Foley
Forbes
Fowler
Fox
Franks (NJ)
Frelinghuysen
Gallegly
Ganske
Gekas
Gibbons
Gilchrest
Gillmor
Gilman
Goodlatte
Goodling
Goss
Graham
Granger
Greenwood
Gutknecht
Hansen
Hastert
Hastings (WA)
Hayworth
Hefley
Herger
Hill
Hilleary
Hobson
Hoekstra
Horn
Hostettler
Houghton
Hulshof
Hunter
Hyde
Inglis
Istook
Jenkins
Johnson (CT)
Johnson, Sam
Jones
Kasich
Kelly
Kim
King (NY)
Kleczka
Klug
Knollenberg
Kolbe
LaHood
Largent
Latham
LaTourette
Lazio
Leach
Lewis (CA)
Lewis (KY)
Linder
Livingston
LoBiondo
Lucas
Manzullo
McCollum
McCrery
McDade
McInnis
McIntosh
McKeon
Metcalf
Miller (FL)
Minge
Molinari
Moran (KS)
Moran (VA)
Morella
Myrick
Nethercutt
Neumann
Ney
Northup
Norwood
Nussle
Oxley
Packard
Pappas
Parker
Paul
Paxon
Pease
Peterson (MN)
Peterson (PA)
Petri
Pickering
Pitts
Pombo
Pomeroy
Porter
Portman
Pryce (OH)
Quinn
Radanovich
Ramstad
Regula
Riggs
Riley
Rogan
Rogers
Rohrabacher
Ros-Lehtinen
Roukema
Royce
Ryun
Salmon
Sanford
Saxton
Scarborough
Schaefer, Dan
Schaffer, Bob
Sensenbrenner
Sessions
Shadegg
Shaw
Shays
Shimkus
Shuster
Skeen
Smith (MI)
Smith (NJ)
Smith (OR)
Smith (TX)
Smith, Linda
Snowbarger
Solomon
Souder
Spence
Stearns

[[Page H2696]]

Stump
Sununu
Talent
Tauzin
Taylor (NC)
Thomas
Thornberry
Thune
Tiahrt
Traficant
Upton
Walsh
Wamp
Watts (OK)
Weldon (FL)
Weldon (PA)
Weller
White
Whitfield
Wicker
Wolf
Wynn
Young (AK)
Young (FL)

NAYS--196

Abercrombie
Ackerman
Allen
Baesler
Baldacci
Barcia
Barrett (WI)
Becerra
Bentsen
Berry
Bishop
Blagojevich
Blumenauer
Bonior
Borski
Boswell
Boucher
Boyd
Brown (FL)
Brown (OH)
Capps
Cardin
Carson
Clay
Clayton
Clement
Clyburn
Condit
Conyers
Costello
Coyne
Cramer
Cummings
Danner
Davis (FL)
Davis (IL)
DeFazio
DeGette
Delahunt
DeLauro
Dellums
Deutsch
Dicks
Dixon
Doggett
Dooley
Doyle
Edwards
Engel
Eshoo
Etheridge
Evans
Farr
Fattah
Fazio
Filner
Flake
Foglietta
Ford
Frank (MA)
Frost
Furse
Gejdenson
Gephardt
Gonzalez
Goode
Gordon
Green
Gutierrez
Hall (OH)
Hall (TX)
Hamilton
Harman
Hastings (FL)
Hilliard
Hinchey
Hinojosa
Holden
Hooley
Hoyer
Jackson (IL)
Jackson-Lee (TX)
Jefferson
John
Johnson (WI)
Johnson, E. B.
Kanjorski
Kaptur
Kennedy (MA)
Kennedy (RI)
Kennelly
Kildee
Kilpatrick
Kind (WI)
Kingston
Klink
Kucinich
LaFalce
Lampson
Lantos
Levin
Lewis (GA)
Lipinski
Lofgren
Lowey
Luther
Maloney (CT)
Maloney (NY)
Manton
Markey
Martinez
Mascara
Matsui
McCarthy (MO)
McCarthy (NY)
McDermott
McGovern
McHale
McHugh
McIntyre
McKinney
McNulty
Meehan
Meek
Menendez
Millender-McDonald
Miller (CA)
Mink
Moakley
Mollohan
Murtha
Nadler
Neal
Oberstar
Obey
Olver
Ortiz
Owens
Pallone
Pascrell
Pastor
Payne
Pelosi
Pickett
Poshard
Price (NC)
Rahall
Rangel
Reyes
Rivers
Rodriguez
Roemer
Rothman
Roybal-Allard
Rush
Sabo
Sanchez
Sanders
Sandlin
Sawyer
Schumer
Scott
Serrano
Sherman
Sisisky
Skaggs
Slaughter
Smith, Adam
Snyder
Spratt
Stabenow
Stark
Stenholm
Stokes
Strickland
Stupak
Tanner
Tauscher
Taylor (MS)
Thompson
Thurman
Tierney
Torres
Towns
Turner
Velazquez
Vento
Visclosky
Waters
Watt (NC)
Waxman
Wexler
Weygand
Wise
Woolsey
Yates

NOT VOTING--9

Andrews
Berman
Brown (CA)
Hefner
Hutchinson
Mica
Schiff
Skelton
Watkins

{time} 1229

Messrs. OWENS, FLAKE, DAVIS of Illinois, McINTYRE, BOSWELL, and
STARK, and Ms. PELOSI changed their vote from ``yea'' to ``nay.''
Messrs. WYNN, MORAN of Virginia, FORBES, and SMITH of Michigan
changed their vote from ``nay'' to ``yea.''
So the previous question was ordered.
The result of the vote was announced as above recorded.
The SPEAKER pro tempore (Mr. Collins). The question is on the
resolution.
The question was taken; and the Speaker pro tempore announced that
the ayes appeared to have it.

Recorded Vote

Mr. SOLOMON. Mr. Speaker, I demand a recorded vote.
A recorded vote was ordered.
The SPEAKER pro tempore. This will be a 5-minute vote.
The vote was taken by electronic device, and there were--ayes 269,
noes 152, not voting 12, as follows:

[Roll No. 130]

AYES--269

Aderholt
Archer
Armey
Bachus
Baker
Ballenger
Barcia
Barr
Barrett (NE)
Bartlett
Barton
Bass
Bateman
Bereuter
Berry
Bilbray
Bilirakis
Bishop
Bliley
Blunt
Boehlert
Boehner
Bonilla
Bono
Borski
Boswell
Boyd
Brady
Bryant
Bunning
Burr
Burton
Buyer
Callahan
Calvert
Camp
Campbell
Canady
Cannon
Castle
Chabot
Chambliss
Chenoweth
Christensen
Clay
Clayton
Coble
Coburn
Combest
Condit
Cook
Cooksey
Cox
Cramer
Crane
Crapo
Cubin
Cunningham
Danner
Davis (VA)
DeLay
Diaz-Balart
Dickey
Dicks
Dingell
Dixon
Doolittle
Doyle
Dreier
Duncan
Dunn
Ehlers
Ehrlich
Emerson
English
Ensign
Everett
Ewing
Fawell
Foley
Forbes
Fowler
Fox
Franks (NJ)
Frelinghuysen
Gallegly
Ganske
Gekas
Gibbons
Gilchrest
Gillmor
Gilman
Goode
Goodlatte
Goodling
Gordon
Goss
Graham
Granger
Greenwood
Gutierrez
Gutknecht
Hall (OH)
Hamilton
Hansen
Harman
Hastert
Hastings (WA)
Hayworth
Hefley
Herger
Hill
Hilleary
Hobson
Hoekstra
Holden
Horn
Hostettler
Houghton
Hulshof
Hunter
Hutchinson
Hyde
Inglis
Istook
Jenkins
Johnson (CT)
Johnson, Sam
Jones
Kanjorski
Kasich
Kelly
Kennedy (RI)
Kim
King (NY)
Kleczka
Klug
Knollenberg
Kolbe
LaFalce
LaHood
Lantos
Largent
LaTourette
Lazio
Leach
Lewis (CA)
Lewis (KY)
Linder
Livingston
LoBiondo
Lucas
Luther
Manzullo
Mascara
Matsui
McCarthy (MO)
McCollum
McCrery
McDade
McInnis
McIntosh
McIntyre
McKeon
Meek
Metcalf
Miller (FL)
Minge
Molinari
Moran (KS)
Moran (VA)
Morella
Murtha
Myrick
Nethercutt
Neumann
Ney
Northup
Nussle
Oxley
Packard
Pappas
Parker
Paul
Paxon
Pease
Peterson (PA)
Petri
Pickering
Pitts
Pombo
Pomeroy
Porter
Portman
Price (NC)
Pryce (OH)
Quinn
Radanovich
Rahall
Ramstad
Regula
Riggs
Riley
Roemer
Rogan
Rogers
Rohrabacher
Ros-Lehtinen
Roukema
Royce
Ryun
Sabo
Salmon
Sanchez
Sanford
Saxton
Scarborough
Schaefer, Dan
Schaffer, Bob
Scott
Sensenbrenner
Sessions
Shadegg
Shaw
Shimkus
Shuster
Sisisky
Skeen
Smith (MI)
Smith (NJ)
Smith (OR)
Smith (TX)
Smith, Linda
Snowbarger
Solomon
Souder
Spence
Spratt
Stenholm
Strickland
Stump
Sununu
Talent
Tauzin
Taylor (MS)
Taylor (NC)
Thomas
Thornberry
Thune
Tiahrt
Towns
Traficant
Turner
Upton
Walsh
Wamp
Waters
Watts (OK)
Weldon (FL)
Weldon (PA)
Weller
White
Whitfield
Wicker
Wise
Wolf
Wynn
Young (AK)
Young (FL)

NOES--152

Abercrombie
Ackerman
Allen
Baesler
Baldacci
Barrett (WI)
Becerra
Bentsen
Blagojevich
Bonior
Boucher
Brown (FL)
Brown (OH)
Capps
Cardin
Carson
Clement
Clyburn
Collins
Conyers
Costello
Coyne
Cummings
Davis (FL)
Davis (IL)
Deal
DeFazio
DeGette
Delahunt
DeLauro
Dellums
Deutsch
Doggett
Dooley
Edwards
Engel
Eshoo
Etheridge
Evans
Farr
Fattah
Fazio
Filner
Flake
Foglietta
Ford
Frank (MA)
Frost
Furse
Gejdenson
Gephardt
Gonzalez
Green
Hall (TX)
Hastings (FL)
Hilliard
Hinchey
Hinojosa
Hooley
Hoyer
Jackson (IL)
Jackson-Lee (TX)
Jefferson
John
Johnson (WI)
Johnson, E.B.
Kennedy (MA)
Kennelly
Kildee
Kilpatrick
Kind (WI)
Kingston
Klink
Lampson
Latham
Levin
Lewis (GA)
Lipinski
Lofgren
Lowey
Maloney (CT)
Maloney (NY)
Manton
Markey
Martinez
McCarthy (NY)
McDermott
McGovern
McHale
McHugh
McKinney
McNulty
Meehan
Menendez
Millender-McDonald
Miller (CA)
Mink
Moakley
Mollohan
Nadler
Neal
Norwood
Oberstar
Obey
Olver
Ortiz
Owens
Pallone
Pascrell
Pastor
Payne
Pelosi
Pickett
Poshard
Rangel
Reyes
Rivers
Rodriguez
Rothman
Roybal-Allard
Rush
Sanders
Sandlin
Sawyer
Schumer
Serrano
Shays
Sherman
Skaggs
Slaughter
Smith, Adam
Snyder
Stabenow
Stark
Stearns
Stokes
Stupak
Tanner
Tauscher
Thompson
Thurman
Tierney
Torres
Velazquez
Vento
Visclosky
Watt (NC)
Waxman
Wexler
Weygand
Woolsey
Yates

NOT VOTING--12

Andrews
Berman
Blumenauer
Brown (CA)
Hefner
Kaptur
Kucinich
Mica
Peterson (MN)
Schiff
Skelton
Watkins

{time} 1240

So the resolution was agreed to.
The result of the vote was announced as above recorded.
A motion to reconsider was laid on the table.

____________________