[Pages H7143-H7150]
From the Congressional Record Online through the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]

{time} 1300
WAIVING POINTS OF ORDER AGAINST CONFERENCE REPORT ON H.R. 4516,
LEGISLATIVE BRANCH APPROPRIATIONS ACT, 2001

Mr. LINDER. Mr. Speaker, by direction of the Committee on Rules, I
call up House Resolution 565 and ask for its immediate consideration.
The Clerk read the resolution, as follows:

H. Res. 565

Resolved, That upon adoption of this resolution it shall be
in order to consider the conference report to accompany the
bill (H.R. 4516) making appropriations for the Legislative
Branch for the fiscal year ending September 30, 2001, and for
other purposes. All points of order against the conference
report and against its consideration are waived. The
conference report shall be considered as read.

The SPEAKER pro tempore (Mr. Barrett of Nebraska). 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 Texas (Mr. Frost), 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, H. Res. 565 is a rule providing for consideration of
H.R. 4516, the conference report for the Legislative Branch
Appropriations bill for fiscal year 2001. The rule waives all points

[[Page H7144]]

of order against the conference report and its consideration and
provides that the conference report shall be considered as read.
House rules provide 1 hour of general debate divided equally between
the chairman and ranking minority member of the Committee on
Appropriations and one motion to recommit, with or without
instructions, as is the right of the minority members of the House.
There are many important provisions of this legislation and I want to
briefly discuss the conference report that this rule makes in order.
Regarding the Legislative Branch Appropriations, this bill continues
our efforts since the 104th Congress to downsize the legislative branch
of government. This bill before us today offers additional proof of our
commitment to fiscal responsibility and this bill has overwhelming
support. In fact, the Legislative Branch Appropriations bill passed the
House only 1 month ago on June 22 by a 373 to 50 vote.
Mr. Speaker, this conference report also includes funding for the
Department of Treasury and general government appropriations. These
appropriations fund many national priorities such as enhancing law
enforcement, school violence prevention, combatting international child
pornography trafficking, and enforcement of our existing gun laws.
The Treasury Postal Appropriations bill passed the House last week,
and I commend the gentleman from Arizona (Mr. Kolbe) for his hard work
on this bill.
I want to comment on the inclusion in this conference report of the
repeal of the telecommunications tax of 1898. I am very pleased that
this conference report eliminates the telecommunications tax, a tax
that is currently limiting the opportunities of lower- and middle-
income Americans to have affordable access to the information
superhighway.
This is just one more tax that makes it cost prohibitive for lower-
income Americans to go online, and I support the inclusion of this
provision in this conference report.
The foolish and shortsighted tax policies of the 101st Congress
should be stopped as soon as possible. That was the Congress that made
that tax permanent that was originally imposed in 1898.
This conference report gives us the opportunity to advance this
common sense telecom tax repeal. There is no reason to delay sending
this to the President as soon as possible.
Mr. Speaker, I would like to close by noting that only 60 days ago,
on March 25, this House passed the repeal of the telecommunications tax
by a vote of 420 to 2. This rule was favorably reported by the
Committee on Rules. I urge my colleagues to support the rule today on
the floor so we may proceed with the general debate in consideration of
this very important conference report.
Mr. Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.
Mr. FROST. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume.
Mr. Speaker, I rise not only in opposition to this rule but to the
heavy-handed manner in which the Republican leadership has chosen to
conduct business in the hours before we adjourn for the August summer
recess.
Mr. Speaker, I must protest in the strongest possible terms the fact
that the Republican leadership has, in the dark hours of night, cobbled
together what they are calling a conference report on legislative
branch appropriations. The majority must be snickering behind their
hands, Mr. Speaker, because this so-called conference report is
constructed of one bill which has actually passed both houses, the
Legislative Branch Appropriations, as well as one that has only seen
action on this side of the Capitol, Treasury Postal Appropriations.
But there is something else. This appropriations conference report
also contains a tax bill, the repeal of the telephone tax passed
earlier by the House. This action was taken without any consultation
with Democratic Members of the Committee on Appropriations, or with the
Democratic leadership. Accordingly, no Democratic member of the
Legislative Branch Conference Committee signed this report.
Mr. Speaker, while I have a photocopy of the conference report, I am
at a loss to try to explain to my colleagues exactly what is in it. The
report was assembled literally in the dark of night, sometime between
11:00 p.m. last night and 7:01 a.m. this morning, when it was filed.
Democrats were led to believe last night this conference agreement was
going to contain a minimum wage increase, as well as several tax
provisions.
I have been assured that this document does not now contain the
minimum wage but since the Committee on Rules did not provide us a
single sheet of explanatory materials when we met at 8:30 a.m. this
morning, I can only vouch for that by having quickly skimmed through
this document.
In addition, Mr. Speaker, in order to accommodate the rush to get out
of town, the Republican leadership kept the Committee on Rules waiting
until 11:00 p.m. last night and the House in session until 11:30 p.m.
Once it was determined that more work was needed to be done on this so-
called conference report, the Committee on Rules was sent home but the
House was not adjourned. It was instead recessed until 7:00 a.m. this
morning so that the Committee on Rules could meet and file a rule this
morning on the same legislative day and, thus, avoid the necessity of
sending a martial law rule to the floor this morning.
Mr. Speaker, I must protest what I consider to be a disrespectful
abuse of this institution and its Members, as well as the many
employees who are required to hurry up and wait while the Republican
leadership tries to figure out exactly how to run this body.
Finally, Mr. Speaker, the rush to consider this matter is all the
more peculiar since it seems that the Senate has absolutely no
intention of considering this conference report until after the recess
in September. This process makes no sense, Mr. Speaker, but it is a
perfect example of the disregard the Republican leadership has
demonstrated time and again for this institution, its practices, and
precedents and the Members who serve here.
I urge every Member of the House to oppose this rule if for no other
reason than to stand up for regular order.
Mr. Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.
Mr. LINDER. Mr. Speaker, I yield 5 minutes to the gentleman from
Arizona (Mr. Kolbe), the chairman of the Subcommittee on Treasury,
Postal Service, and General Government.
Mr. KOLBE. Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentleman from Georgia (Mr.
Linder) for yielding me this time.
Mr. Speaker, I listened with interest to the gentleman from Texas
(Mr. Frost) and the comments he made about the procedures that were
followed in bringing this conference report to the floor of the House.
I will not comment on some of those procedures because they are, as we
say, above my pay grade. They were decisions made beyond me, but I do
want to comment about that part for which I have some knowledge and
some responsibility, and that is the part in here, the very large part
in here, that deals with the Treasury, Postal and General Government
Appropriation.
I think from a procedural standpoint, we need to understand a couple
of things. First of all, I can remember on the floor of this House last
year listening to the laments of the minority, our friends across the
aisle, as they complained that we were not acting on appropriation
bills in a timely fashion. Now, of course, today, if we pass the D.C.
appropriations bill we will have passed all of the appropriations bills
before the August recess. I believe that is an unprecedented number in
modern times. So we are hearing the complaint today with this
conference report that we are really rushing it, we are moving it too
fast; and we have heard that there was not sufficient consultation with
the minority about this.
I regret very much that there was not more minority participation in
the informal conference which took place on this bill, but I think it
is very important that my colleagues understand that the minority was
given full opportunity to participate, both the minority in the House
of Representatives and in the Senate, and it was their decision, their
choice, not to have staff members participate in the discussion of the
provisions that were different between the House and the Senate bills
as we tried to iron those out.
Now, the process that we followed was one that is followed, as far as
I

[[Page H7145]]

know, as long as I have been here in every appropriations conference.
That is that staff people from the two sides, the Senate and the House,
get together and try and iron out the major differences. We followed
that procedure. Where there were major differences that could not be
handled by staff, I worked with my counterpart over in the Senate.
Again, because a decision was made by the minority not to participate
in those meetings, we did it on an informal basis.
Was there a formal conference committee held? No. I cannot say how
many times that I served on conference committees when I was in the
minority of appropriations where the conference committee never met at
all. So I do not think this process has been any different.
I do regret very much that the minority chose not to participate in
this process. They chose not to be involved in it. Nonetheless, the
charge that was given to me was to make sure that we had a bill that
was signable and passable, passable in the House and the Senate,
signable by the President of the United States.
I think when we get into a discussion of the conference report
itself, we will have an opportunity to see that many of the concerns
that were expressed on this floor during debate on the Treasury Postal
bill, by the Members from the other side of the aisle, were addressed.
Many, if not all, of the concerns that were expressed by the
administration through their statement of administration policy, called
the SAP, in the letter that was sent both to the House and to the
Senate appropriators, virtually all of those issues were addressed.
We have what I believe is a bill that is definitely a very good bill.
It deals with the problems that confront the Internal Revenue Service,
the Customs Service. We will have an opportunity to discuss those in
greater detail as we go forward here, but I think that it is very clear
to say that an opportunity was given for both sides to participate in
this process. I do hope, before we get to a vote on the conference
report, that there will be a much better understanding by all Members
about the process, not only about the process but about the content of
what is in this bill.
I think when they do understand it, there will be a great deal of
acceptance.
Mr. FROST. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself 1 minute.
Mr. Speaker, I am unclear about what the gentleman just said. Is the
gentleman suggesting that the Republican leadership in the Senate is
not competent to bring a bill to the floor for a vote because this is
the crux of the argument? The Treasury Postal bill was never voted on
in the Senate on the floor. What they did was to short-circuit the
normal legislative process, reach out from the conference committee on
another bill and pick up a bill that had never been passed on the floor
of the Senate.
So I do not quite understand what the gentleman was saying. Was he
saying that his own leadership on the other side of the Capitol was not
capable of bringing a bill to a vote on the floor of the Senate? I am
curious as to why they chose to pick this bill up and put it into
conference when it had never been voted on by the full Senate.
Mr. KOLBE. Mr. Speaker, will the gentleman yield?
Mr. FROST. I yield to the gentleman from Arizona.
Mr. KOLBE. The answer is that over in the Senate, for reasons of
their own, there was a dispute over some of the confirmations, as I
understand it, confirmations of judgeships, and for that reason there
was a hold placed on any of the appropriation bills after the
legislative bill. So that became the only vehicle really that was
available to us.
Mr. LINDER. Mr. Speaker, I yield 1 minute to the gentleman from
Arizona (Mr. Kolbe), for him to respond.
Mr. KOLBE. Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentleman from Georgia (Mr.
Linder) for yielding the additional time so I can respond.
Mr. Speaker, so the decision was made over in the Senate that in
order to try to expedite this process and to get not only the
legislative bill but the Treasury Postal bill and at least this one tax
bill that had passed by such a very large margin done before the August
recess, that they would put those together and that is the reason, very
simply, why it was put on this bill.
There was a debate that preceded yesterday on the Treasury bill. I am
not sure how far they got yesterday before the end of the day, but they
have had debate on the bill on the floor of the United States Senate.
Mr. FROST. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself 1 additional minute.
Mr. Speaker, let me see if I understand this. If the Senate is
incapable of voting on a bill, for whatever reason, if they are
incapable of taking a bill to final passage, then that is the basis for
rolling that bill into a conference. If I understand what the gentleman
is saying, he is saying, well, they just cannot get anything done over
there in the Senate. They have some problems so we have to help them by
picking up a bill that they never voted on and just rolling it into the
conference on another bill. That seems a very peculiar procedure,
particularly since we are going to come back after the Republican and
the Democratic conventions. It is not like this is the last day of the
session. We will certainly be here for the full month of September so
it seems like a very peculiar and unusual procedure.

Announcement by the Speaker Pro Tempore

The SPEAKER pro tempore. The Chair would again remind Members to
avoid improper references to the Senate, including characterizations of
their actions.
Mr. FROST. Mr. Speaker, I yield 4 minutes to the gentleman from
Massachusetts (Mr. Moakley).
Mr. MOAKLEY. Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentleman from Texas (Mr.
Frost), the chairman of the Democratic Caucus, for yielding me the
time.

{time} 1315

Mr. Speaker, this rule is coming to the floor under the most
unbelievable circumstances. Last night when there was a baseball game
going on between the Republicans and Democrats, there was another game
going on upstairs, only this game had no referees and no umpires. After
everyone else had gone home, the Committee on Rules waited around until
11 p.m. for the Republican leadership to decide our fate. Late last
night, we finally get word that we are not going to meet, but the House
would stay in session so that we could come back early this morning,
file three rules, and immediately recess to begin another legislative
day.
The Republican leadership decided to take two appropriations bills,
Legislative Branch and Treasury Postal, and work on them until 7 a.m.
this morning, and then, 1\1/2\ hours later, send them to the Committee
on Rules. A couple of hours after that, here they are on the floor of
the House. Meanwhile, Mr. Speaker, really, barely anyone has the
foggiest idea what is in this bill. Yet, Mr. Speaker, we are supposed
to vote on it.
This convoluted process is just a part of a larger pattern of
disrespect, not only for the Committee on Rules, but for the entire
membership at large. Mr. Speaker, it is totally uncalled for. The
Senate has already announced that they will not take this up until mid-
September. Why the rush? I suspect, Mr. Speaker, the lightning speed
with which this bill is arriving on the House floor has something to do
with the contents.
Once upon a time, Mr. Speaker, there were two noble suggestions on
the House floor: one, to lift the American embargo on food and medicine
to Cuba and the other one would lift the restrictions preventing
American citizens from traveling to Cuba. A majority of the House
recognized the wisdom in lifting the outdated prohibition on sending
either American food or American medicine to our neighbors in Cuba. The
House then voted 301 to 116 to pass the Moran amendment to lift the
food and medicine embargo and the Senate passed a similar amendment by
Senator Dorgan.
A majority of the House recognized that this embargo that was started
some 40 years ago when things were a lot different than they are today.
Communism was a real threat; Cuba was a real threat. But, Mr. Speaker,
that policy has not worked for 40 years, and the American people have
asked us to change.
Mr. Speaker, there are sick people in Cuba who could use our help.
They live 90 miles from the world's best doctors,

[[Page H7146]]

hospitals, and researchers. We should be sharing our discoveries,
because it is the right thing to do; and we should not be denying them
because we feel we abhor the Fidel Castro-type of government.
The House also passed the Sanford amendment to allow Americans to
travel to Cuba by a vote of 232 to 186. It is one of the most
fundamental rights we have as Americans, the right to travel freely,
and that also is being denied.
But despite those majority votes, the Republican leadership removed
these limitation amendments in the wee hours of this morning and hope
we would be none the wiser.
So in order to change the will of the majority of the House, we are
considering this rule and these bills under a skewed, undemocratic
process. So I urge my colleagues to oppose the rule. The Cuban people
and the American farmers deserve better.
Mr. LINDER. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume.
I would point out that there is a compromise in the works on the
Cuban language, language that I joined the gentleman from Massachusetts
(Mr. Moakley) in supporting and that will, I presume, be on the
agricultural bill. He can rest assured that this will be taken care of
on the floor.
Mr. MOAKLEY. Mr. Speaker, will the gentleman yield?
Mr. LINDER. I yield to the gentleman from Massachusetts.
Mr. MOAKLEY. Mr. Speaker, as my colleagues may recall, this language
came through on the agriculture bill, but then they decided to take it
off and put it on the Treasury bill, and they were sure it would be
there. Now they are going to put it back on the agricultural bill.
Mr. LINDER. Mr. Speaker, reclaiming my time, I think I made my point,
and I reserve the balance of my time.
Mr. FROST. Mr. Speaker, I yield 6 minutes to the gentleman from
Wisconsin (Mr. Obey), the ranking member of the Committee on
Appropriations.
Mr. OBEY. Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentleman for yielding me this
time.
Before I begin my remarks, I would like to ask one question in case
anybody can answer this. I would like to ask the majority if they can
tell me by how many dollars do the two bills in this conference report
exceed the budget resolution and exceed the allocation provided to each
of the subcommittees under the Budget Act? Is there no one who can
answer that question?
Mr. LINDER. Mr. Speaker, will the gentleman yield?
Mr. OBEY. I yield to the gentleman from Georgia.
Mr. LINDER. Mr. Speaker, not being on the Committee on
Appropriations, I am certain that, when that bill gets to the floor and
into debate, they can explain that to the gentleman.
Mr. OBEY. Mr. Speaker, reclaiming my time, I find it interesting that
a party which professes to be so concerned with budget stringency will
ask us to bring a bill to the floor before we even know by how much it
exceeds the budget under which we are supposed to operate.
My understanding is that the Legislative Subcommittee portion of this
conference report exceeds the budget by $47 million, and that the
Treasury-Post Office bill exceeds the allocation by $1.2 billion; and
then there is also an additional $6 billion question mark because of
the shifting of pay dates for SSI and for veterans' checks, which I
think makes a real hash of any claim that there is any kind of budget
discipline at all left around here.
Secondly, I would simply like to observe, as my friend, Archie the
Cockroach, has often observed, that this bill looks like an accident
that started out to happen to somebody else. The legislative
appropriations bill was moving along, following the normal process. The
normal process is that the House passes an appropriation bill and then
the Senate passes it, and then we have a conference committee which
meets and resolves the differences, and then we pass the conference
report and send it on to the President for his signature. That is what
has happened, commendably, for one portion of this conference report.
However, then the conference report ran into a train wreck, because
being attached to it is a conference report on another appropriation
bill, the Treasury-Post Office bill, and the quaint thing about that is
that the Senate has never even considered that bill. So now we are
being asked to consider a bill which represents a compromise between
the House and the Senate on Treasury-Post Office, and yet the Senate
has never had an opportunity to formulate a position on the bill.
The reason the minority did not participate in the sham meeting that
took place in the dead of night last night is because on both sides of
the Capitol, we feel this process is so profoundly illegitimate that we
wanted nothing to do with it.
The fact is that what my Republican colleagues have done does have
practical results. What they have done, for instance, is to add a
totally nongermane tax provision which, if we had tried to bring it to
the floor, would have been laughed out of the place. Secondly, you have
had some anonymous source in the majority party leadership unilaterally
and arrogantly reverse a decision made on the floor of this House by
the full membership of this House when it comes to the embargo issue.
Now, that does not surprise me, because a year ago I was promised
personally by two members of the Republican leadership, and they know
who they are, I was promised personally that they would take no action
to block the reform of dairy milk marketing orders on an appropriation
bill. The leadership then went back on that promise in the last week of
the session, which led to a filibuster in both Houses on that issue;
and now, farmers again are going to wake up to discover that a victory
which they thought they had won on the House floor is being snatched
away from them in the dead of night by anonymous Republican leaders who
have decided that they do not care what the majority decided on this
House floor with respect to the embargo issue. They are going to throw
it in the ash can because it does not either meet their political
objectives or their ideological objectives or their substantive
objectives. That process too is illegitimate, and that is why they did
not find the minority party participating in that.
Mr. Speaker, I would also point out that we have a strange shell game
going on, because in the budget last year this Congress voted to move
the pay dates for SSI and for veterans back one day, to move it into
the next fiscal year. Then, in the supplemental which the majority
passed a while back this year, they reversed that decision; and now
they are reversing their reversal, and that is why I asked the
question; Does not that mean that, in fact, this bill is almost $7
billion over the allocations assigned to it under the Budget Act? I
think the answer is yes; but so far, we have not gotten a clear answer
on it.
Then we have one more quaint provision which says that the GSA is
ordered to build a road in New Mexico. GSA, to my knowledge, has never
built a road in the history of their operation. I find it very
interesting that that kind of ``urgent emergency'' appropriation is
being provided in this bill.
So this is the way Daffy Duck would do business on a bad day. It is a
joke, and it ought to be defeated.
Mr. LINDER. Mr. Speaker, I yield 1 minute to the gentleman from
Arizona (Mr. Kolbe) for the purpose of a response.
Mr. KOLBE. Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentleman for yielding. I do want
to respond to the gentleman from Wisconsin. He asked a question, as I
recall a rhetorical question since he answered himself, about the
amount that this was over the allocation. I can only respond, of
course, for the Treasury bill. He is correct, it is about $1.2 billion
over the allocation.
My question to him in return would be, is the gentleman saying that
the money is too much, that we should not have these funds in there?
Because earlier on the floor, just to let me finish my comment, earlier
on the floor when we were debating the Treasury-Postal bill, we heard
from every person over on that side of the aisle that was debating it
that it was woefully inadequate, woefully insufficient funds and that
it needed more money in order to get into a signable form. We think we
have done that. We put more money in to make it into a signable form.
I would just inquire of the gentleman, is the money too much? Is the
gentleman saying that we have put too

[[Page H7147]]

much? If so, I would certainly like to know that so that maybe we
could change some of that.
Mr. OBEY. Mr. Speaker, will the gentleman yield?
Mr. KOLBE. My time has expired.
Mr. OBEY. So the question is rhetorical and not meant to have an
answer.
Mr. FROST. Mr. Speaker, I yield 6 minutes to the gentleman from
Maryland (Mr. Hoyer), the ranking member on the Subcommittee on
Treasury, Postal Service and General Government.
(Mr. HOYER asked and was given permission to revise and extend his
remarks.)
Mr. HOYER. Mr. Speaker, we have sad days in the House when we
undermine any semblance of comity and of regular order, when we indeed
undermine the premise on which so many were elected in 1994 in the so-
called revolution, when they came to this House on the premise that
Democrats somehow did not follow the regular order, did not follow the
rules. The chairman of the Committee on Rules, the gentleman from
California (Mr. Dreier), was one of the major proponents of that
proposition.
This process is not fair to any Member of this House; and, more
importantly, it is not fair to the American public.
My colleagues have heard the gentleman from Massachusetts (Mr.
Moakley), the ranking member of the Committee on Rules, outline the
scenario, the timing under which this was done. I have no criticism of
either the gentleman from Florida (Mr. Young) or the gentleman from
Arizona (Mr. Kolbe), the chairman of our subcommittee, with whom I work
very closely. They are, in my opinion, both honorable men who have
acted honorably, although they have acted consistent with directions
which were not consistent with good order of this House.
The ranking member has correctly stated that this bill is
approximately $7 billion, give or take a couple of $100 million, over
the budget allocation. Yet we came to subcommittee, we came to
committee, and we came to this floor and were told, you cannot do this,
you cannot add this $1.2 billion. How many days ago was that, I ask my
friends, that that was intoned on this floor? Approximately 7 days ago.

{time} 1330

The principle was ensconced in stone 7 days ago, and now it is gone
with the wind in the dead of night, obfuscated. Why, I do not know. The
Senate is not going to pass this bill. Everybody on this floor knows
that.
There is no need to move this. There is no need to shut us out. I
heard my friend, and I understand what he said. But the fact of the
matter is the Senate had not passed the bill. We have not had a
conference. I participated in no meetings.
Now, was my staff informed? Yes, they were at approximately 10:30
last night of what was in this, and we have been scrambling ever since
to find out, that is what my staff tells me, of the substance of the
bill. No discussions from us as to what ought to be in and out.
Now, let me say to the gentleman from Arizona (Mr. Kolbe) and the
gentleman from Florida (Mr. Young), I think what they have added in
this bill is appropriate for the most part. That does not mean I think
they have done what we suggested be done and which they then rejected
on the floor 7 days ago.
We ought to reject this rule, not only because of the substance or
the lack of substance in this bill, but we ought to, as Members of this
House, not Democrats and Republicans, as Members of this House, who I
think in many instances respect one another. I know that is the case
for most of the appropriators. I cannot speak for other committees
because that is the committee that I know best, and I respect and I
like the Republican members of the Committee on Appropriations, and
particularly that applies to the gentleman from Florida (Mr. Young) and
the gentleman from Arizona (Mr. Kolbe).
But I do not respect, nor do I like the process that they have been
told to carry out. This is not right. Not for this bill, not for the
Legislative bill.
I participated in the conference on the Legislative bill. I sat
there. We talked about the provisions. We voted at the end. I did not
get everything I wanted. As a matter of fact, I agreed significantly in
some parts of that bill.
But I did not raise any questions. The process was followed. You win
some; you lose some. You make your arguments.
Here, that was not the case. My colleagues heard the gentleman from
Massachusetts (Mr. Moakley). How can the CATS come here $7 billion over
budget? It is going to be interesting to watch them vote on this
package.
Now, I do not agree with them, but if there is any intellectual
consistency, I am going to be astounded that they might do that. One
may get them to do that.
I do not think our Members are going to vote for this bill, not
because they do not think the gentleman from Arizona (Mr. Kolbe) that
what he added on is appropriate with IRS, with GSA and with other items
in the bill. We discussed that. You agreed. I agreed. We do not
disagree on that.
But, Mr. Speaker, we are going to be here at least for another 30 or
45 days. Let us treat one another and the American public with respect,
with consideration. Yes, we will disagree; and, yes, my colleagues will
impose from time to time the majority will. That is democracy.
But do not do it in the dead of night. Do not recess late at night so
one can have an extra legislative day. That is a legislative game to
stick it to us, because the rules that they so passionately argued for
when they were in the minority ought to protect the minority and that
we overran they said, say that one cannot do it in one legislative day.
So they did this gimmick. It is a legitimate gimmick. We used it. They
complained bitterly about it. They did it last night in the dead of
night and came here at 7 a.m. and filed it.
This rule ought to be defeated. We ought to be about the regular
order and do things the right way and respect one another and respect
this institution.
The SPEAKER pro tempore (Mr. Barrett of Nebraska). The Chair advises
the gentleman from Georgia (Mr. Linder) has 19\1/2\ minutes remaining.
The gentleman from Texas (Mr. Frost) has 8\1/2\ minutes remaining.
Mr. LINDER. Mr. Speaker, I continue to reserve the balance of my
time.
Mr. FROST. Mr. Speaker, I inquire of the gentleman from Georgia (Mr.
Linder) whether he has additional speakers.
Mr. LINDER. Mr. Speaker, perhaps one, perhaps two; but right now I
reserve the balance of my time.
Mr. FROST. Mr. Speaker, I yield 3 minutes to the gentleman from New
York (Mr. Serrano).
(Mr. SERRANO asked and was given permission to revise and extend his
remarks.)
Mr. SERRANO. Mr. Speaker, I started out in life with English as a
second language. So even though I speak more English in my adult life
than I have spoken Spanish, I still have to pay close attention to make
sure that what I hear is correct.
I heard that this decision was made through an ``informal
conference.'' I tried that in Spanish--(the gentleman from New York
spoke in Spanish). I tried it in English, ``informal conference.'' Both
ways I come up with no conference at all.
In other words, an informal conference is a couple of people getting
together and deciding there is something they do not like in a bill and
then destroying that bill, taking that out, and then presenting it to
us as an insult to the will of the House.
Let us be clear. The House said that on one particular issue, the
issue of our future relations with Cuba, we would begin to change our
behavior. In one particular instance, with 301 votes in favor, the
House spoke on that issue.
But we knew, those of us who support that issue knew, that somehow we
would figure on the other side a way to kill that. We had to. How could
we listen to 301 Members? How could we listen to the majority of the
American people? How could we listen to the American farmer? Are you
kidding?
So this bill is before us today as an attempt to accomplish many
things, but in particular to get two amendments that continue to punish
a country and ignore the will of the American people.
This is not the end of this issue. We will try very hard today to
defeat this rule. But the fact of life is that my colleagues' time is
running out. They cannot continue to ignore the Constitution. They
cannot continue to ignore

[[Page H7148]]

the will of the people, and they cannot continue to ignore the will of
their own Members.
There are 301 Members, there are Republican Members, who will have to
explain to the American farmer. My colleagues are hearing it from a
person from the South Bronx, who thought all food grew in supermarkets
up till recently. My colleagues are going to have to explain to them
why they turn their backs on the American farmers who have been begging
them to support them on this issue.
Cuba did not lose today. I and those who support this issue did not
lose today. The big losers are the process in this House and the
American farmer.
There is no compromise on another bill. Do not kid me, and do not kid
us. There will never be a compromise on another bill as long as there
is a desire to continue to ignore the will of the American people.
Vote down this rule.
Mr. LINDER. Mr. Speaker, I continue to reserve the balance of my
time.
Mr. FROST. Mr. Speaker, I yield 1 minute to the gentleman from
Massachusetts (Mr. McGovern).
Mr. McGOVERN. Mr. Speaker, I rise in strong opposition to the rule,
and I want to associate myself with the remarks of the gentleman from
Massachusetts (Mr. Moakley), the gentleman from Wisconsin (Mr. Obey),
and the gentleman from New York (Mr. Serrano), especially with regard
to the outrageous action by the Committee on Rules to remove in the
dead of night the language overwhelmingly passed by this House
regarding easing the embargo and travel restrictions on Cuba. The
Sanford amendment which dealt with travel restrictions passed this
House by 232 to 186. The amendment by the gentleman from Kansas (Mr.
Moran) dealing with food and medicine passed this House by 301 to 116.
A handful of Members in the leadership on the other side are
apparently still nostalgic for the Cold War, enough so that they have
ignored the will of this body.
The so-called compromise that the gentleman from Georgia (Mr. Linder)
made reference to earlier, it is not a compromise. It is a sellout. It
would add on to the restrictions that are already in place.
What the Committee on Rules did, not only shows a lack of respect for
this House, but it shows a lack of respect for the Members of this
House on both sides of the aisle. The Committee on Rules has turned its
back on our farmers.
My colleagues talk about the need for democracy in Cuba. How about a
little democracy in the House of Representatives.
Mr. LINDER. Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to yield such time as he may
consume to the gentleman from Texas (Mr. DeLay), the majority whip.
Mr. DeLAY. Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentleman for yielding me this
time.
Mr. Speaker, this is a very interesting debate; and it is a good
debate to have at the closing hours before the August district work
period, because it is a great warning as to what is going to happen in
September.
Yes, I am sad to say that spending is up on this bill. The House did
an incredible job over this year passing 12 bills, and hopefully this
afternoon 13 bills, trying to hold the line on the spending.
Through all the debates, every debate on every one of those 12 bills
that we have already passed, and the debate we saw yesterday on the
D.C. bill, the minority, the Democrats, complain that there was not
enough spending. They want to spend more money. They want to spend more
money. They claimed every bill was woefully, woefully inadequate in
spending.
The President has said he wants more spending. So we thought that, in
fashioning this particular bill, we would honor as much of their
request as we could honor in order to get their support and in order to
get the President to sign the bill.
We did consult with the White House on what their needs were in the
Treasury-Postal bill. We begrudgingly gave them some of the money in
the TPO bill, $1.2 billion, that they have been crying for all this
year, because we know that the President of the United States has to
sign the bill before it becomes law. So we did that.
But do not denigrate the work of this House. The work of this House
has been strong in trying to hold the line on spending.
They are salivating over the notion that there is this huge surplus,
that they could spend more money. It is harder to deal with these
issues under a surplus than it was under a deficit because of the
penchant of many Members wanting to spend more money.
But we have told the American people that we are going to pay down on
the debt. There is a $270 billion surplus, and we are going to spend 84
percent of that in paying down on the debt on our children and
grandchildren. We ask for 8 percent, 8 percent of that surplus to give
some tax relief and tax fairness in the marriage penalty repeal,
repealing the death tax.
On this bill is repealing the Spanish-American War tax that they kept
spending when they were in control on bigger government. We think the
American family needs a little tax fairness and tax relief, 8 percent
of the surplus.
We sort of set aside another 8 percent, $22 billion, for their
increased spending, knowing that we could not get the President to sign
it unless we gave it to them. That is why we bring it here. Let me just
quickly touch on the Cuba issue. They won the Cuba issue. I was
absolutely opposed to it. But they want it in the TPO bill, which is
not the proper way to do it.
But because those two amendments passed and passed overwhelmingly,
they won. They have got the leverage now to go and negotiate in the
conference of the Committee on Agriculture appropriations bill to get
what they want. That is very significant. But to do it the way that
they did it is really something that the Senate just would not accept
because it is not the right way to do it.
We have tried to hold the line. But let me tell my colleagues what is
really going on here and why we have had to use this unusual procedure
in order to get these appropriations bills.
This is the anniversary, by the way, the 1-year anniversary when the
minority leader announced that their strategy is to disrupt, obstruct,
and stop the Republican House from passing anything. They have been
trying to carry that out all year long. We have a six-vote margin, now,
thank God. We have a 7-vote margin as of yesterday. We have a 7-vote
margin. On these bills, it has been very difficult to put these bills
together all by ourselves because they refused to participate.
They have even asked their own Members to vote against their own
districts and their own interests in these appropriations bills in
order to obstruct getting things done.
They outline their strategy. They are trying to carry it out. Right
now, in the other body, they cannot pass anything because the Democrats
in the other body have the Senate tied in knots. The reason that we had
to do TPO on this bill is they cannot get it up on the floor of the
Senate because the Democrats do not want to pass it. That is why we had
to put it on this bill. They have used everything available to them to
obstruct our ability to carry out the appropriations process.

{time} 1345

The point I am trying to make is we have worked very, very hard to
pay down the debt with the surplus, to give a little tax fairness and
hold the line on spending. That is the fiscally responsible thing to
do. The other side, and I point out that they argued all year there is
not enough money in here, and now we see them arguing because there is
too much money in this bill. It is an amazing dichotomy that we witness
here all day long every day.
The point is they do not want the process to work. They do not want
us to pass these bills because they want to force us into some sort of
summit with a big omnibus bill so they can get more spending. Well, we
ain't goin' there. We ain't goin' there. We are going to pass these
bills. We are going to do the fiscally responsible thing, and I hope
our Members will stand up, vote for this rule and allow us to proceed.
Mr. FROST. Mr. Speaker, I yield 1 minute to the gentleman from South
Carolina (Mr. Sanford).
Mr. LINDER. Mr. Speaker, yield 1 minute to the gentleman from South
Carolina (Mr. Sanford).
The SPEAKER pro tempore (Mr. Barrett of Nebraska). The gentleman from
South Carolina (Mr. Sanford) is recognized for 2 minutes.

[[Page H7149]]

Mr. SANFORD. Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentleman from Texas (Mr.
Frost) and the gentleman from Georgia (Mr. Linder) for yielding me this
bipartisan time.
I rise very reluctantly to oppose this rule. And the reason I do so,
and my comments would be aimed at conservatives and Republicans, the
reason I do so is because I think this is a gut-check vote. Because one
of the things I ran on back in the beginning of the 104th Congress,
before I ever got here, was the idea of working against midnight deals.
One of the things we talked about, the young Members of the 104th
Congress, before we ever got here, is that we have to stop this. The
Democrats did it for too long. And yet here we find ourselves basically
getting a $30 billion bill at 11 a.m. and we have 2 hours to look at a
$30 billion bill. That is the antithesis of what we are to be about in
process.
Secondly, my daddy always used to say, ``Don't bid against
yourself.'' This is a classic case of bidding against ourselves.
Because normally we say, well, we are here, the Senate is over here in
terms of spending, so therefore we are going to have to appease the
Senate and we will come up with some number halfway in between. But
here, without the Senate ever meeting, we have gone and increased
legislative branch by $51 million; we have increased Treasury, Postal
by $1.27 billion, and we really are bidding against ourselves.
So I think this is one of those cases where, and I respectfully mean
this, as my dad used to say, ``If you don't get something right, then
try, try, and try again.'' We need to defeat this rule, send it back,
and ask them simply to try again.
I would mention a couple of things that did come out in the few
moments I had to look at this bill. For those against gun control, why
are we increasing ATF by 29.4 percent; for those that that is an issue
of importance? For those conservatives against the congressional pay
raise, why are we including it here? Again, if Members want a fig leaf
cover in voting against the pay raise, then wait and vote against the
bill itself. But this is a chance to truly defeat it. And for those
against an increase in Members' pension, here is a chance to get at it.
The fact of the matter is I have talked to our colleagues on the
Senate side, and they are never going to agree to this nonconference
conference. This has a lot to do ultimately with Cuba, and the question
is what are we willing to trade off in terms of ideals that we believe
in and money toward that end? I think this is a price too high.
Mr. FROST. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself 1 minute.
The gentleman from Texas (Mr. DeLay) is leaving the floor, but I had
trouble following his logic. He would not yield time to me, he is
leaving the floor now, but I noticed that the gentleman from Arizona
(Mr. Kolbe) was pointing in one direction; he was saying that, well,
the Senate couldn't take this up because there were holds on just
additional nominations, presumably by Republicans; and the gentleman
from Texas (Mr. DeLay) was pointing the other direction; and he was
saying, no, they could not take this up because the Democrats, who are
in the minority of course, were blocking consideration.
Now, which is it? Is it because Republicans have holds on judicial
nominations or is it because the minority Democrats prevented this from
coming up? I do not quite understand. The gentlemen cannot have it both
ways, and I would ask if the gentleman from Texas (Mr. DeLay) could
respond to that?
Mr. KOLBE. Mr. Speaker, will the gentleman yield?
Mr. FROST. I yield to the gentleman from Arizona.
Mr. KOLBE. Since the gentleman spoke about what I said, Mr. Speaker,
I said that there was some disagreement over some of the judicial
nominations and, for that reason, the other party in the Senate, it is
my understanding, and I know we are not supposed to characterize what
was happening, but for that reason they, therefore, put a hold on all
the appropriation bills. That was simply what I was saying.
Mr. FROST. Mr. Speaker, I would ask how much time we have remaining.
The SPEAKER pro tempore. The gentleman from Texas (Mr. Frost) has
2\1/2\ minutes remaining.
Mr. FROST. Perhaps the gentleman from Georgia would like to proceed.
Mr. LINDER. Mr. Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from
Kansas (Mr. Moran).
Mr. MORAN of Kansas. Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentleman from Georgia
for yielding me this time, and I rise today knowing that later this
afternoon we will vote on a conference committee report that excludes
the provisions of an amendment that I offered on the House floor 1 week
ago today.
Seven days ago we had what I believe and know is a significant
victory on behalf of American farmers, American ranchers, and, I
believe, on behalf of the Cuban people. The opportunity to trade with
Cuba food, medicine, and agricultural products is an important issue.
The vote we had, 301 to 116, reflects a growing belief, a strong
commitment in the House of Representatives that the policy that we have
had in place for 38 years is a failed policy that damages American
farmers and ranchers much more than it has ever damaged the government
of Cuba.
I continue to seek reassurance from the leadership of the House that
this issue will not go away and that ultimately our fight in this
regard will be heard in this House. This issue will again arise in an
appropriation bill, the legislative branch appropriation bill, and I
again point out to the leadership of the House, both the Democrat and
Republican leadership, that we have the ability and the support of the
Members of the House and their constituencies to advance this issue
this year. I will continue to work today with the leadership of the
committee, the leadership of the Committee on Rules, and the leadership
of the House to make certain that this issue prevails at the end of the
day.
Mr. FROST. Mr. Speaker, I yield 1 minute to the gentleman from
Maryland (Mr. Hoyer).
Mr. HOYER. Mr. Speaker, I want to make two points, in response,
frankly, to the majority whip.
First of all, it was not the Democrats, it was all of us. Let me read
from the report of our committee, the majority report, which I
supported, which said ``With those additional responsibilities in
mind,'' that is the things that are in the bill, ``the allocation is
short by approximately $1.3 billion.''
So I tell my friend, the majority whip, that he says it in the report
that this is needed. But 7 days ago the gentleman would not do it. Why
would he not do it 7 days ago? So he could say to the American public
what he has just said now; we are trying to constrain spending: Yes, we
think $1.3 billion is necessary; and, guess what, 7 days later we will
put it in. But the press release that went out on Friday said no, we
are going to have fiscal constraint. For 6 days. For 6 days.
Secondly, I would say to my friend there is no need for this,
whatever is happening in the other body. We could have considered the
legislative bill on its merits in order, and we could consider the
Treasury, Postal bill on its merits in order.

Parliamentary Inquiry

Mr. HOYER. Mr. Speaker, parliamentary inquiry.
The SPEAKER pro tempore. The gentleman will State his inquiry.
Mr. HOYER. Am I correct that if this rule passes and we go to
consideration of the conference report, and then we seek to offer a
motion to recommit, that no amendment or motion to recommit which deals
with the Treasury, Postal bill will be in order because it will not be
germane under the conference committee report because it is on the
legislative bill? Am I correct on that, Mr. Speaker?
The SPEAKER pro tempore. The motion to recommit to conference will be
available and may include instructions to address issues within the
scope of conference such as certain reactions from the conference
report.
Mr. HOYER. My question, though, Mr. Speaker is if in the motion to
recommit a change in the Treasury, Postal bill is offered, will that be
in order?
The SPEAKER pro tempore. That question will be addressed by the Chair
when actually presented, but the Chair can say generally that a motion
to strike certain matter might be in order.
Mr. HOYER. I understand a motion to strike will be in order on any
part of the bill. But my point is, I believe I

[[Page H7150]]

have been told by the Parliamentarian, and I want to make sure that the
Members know this as well, that a change in the Treasury, Postal bill
will not be germane because the only germane amendment to change the
bill will be to the legislative bill because that is the underlying
bill. Am I correct on that?
The SPEAKER pro tempore. That question cannot be prejudged at this
point in time.
Mr. HOYER. Why not? There is not an answer that exists to that, Mr.
Speaker? It is not a theoretical question.
The SPEAKER pro tempore. At this point, the question is hypothetical.
Mr. HOYER. Mr. Speaker, let me suggest that it may not be
hypothetical at all as it relates to how Members feel they can vote on
this particular rule, because they will know if they vote on this rule
that they may or may not be precluded from taking such action under the
rules that they may want to take.
That is why I believe that it is a relevant question at this time,
prior to the vote on the rule.
The SPEAKER pro tempore. That is a fair question on which to engage
in debate but not for advisory opinion from the Chair. It is still
hypothetical.
Mr. FROST. Mr. Speaker, I yield the balance of my time to the
gentleman from Wisconsin (Mr. Obey), the ranking member on the
Committee on Appropriations.
The SPEAKER pro tempore. The gentleman from Wisconsin (Mr. Obey) is
recognized for 1\1/2\ minutes.
Mr. OBEY. Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentleman for yielding me this
time.
I would once again want to try to correct some of the misstatements
made by the distinguished majority whip. He indicated that those of us
on the Democratic sides of the aisle had insisted that all 13
appropriation bills have a higher spending level than those produced by
the majority. I would point out I wrote dissenting views to the
Department of Defense bill that the majority brought to this House.
That bill is $19 billion over last year and it is $5.1 billion above
the President's request. Not with my vote, but with his.
The Labor HHS bill, at this point, the document being worked on in
conference, is $2.5 billion over the President's request.
The point we are trying to make is very simple. The majority party
indicated earlier in this year that it was going to insist on its
budget resolution. We made the point at that time that it was not
realistic; that the Congress would wind up spending much more money
than that, and that they ought to fess up earlier rather than later.
Now what has happened is that on bill after bill the majority party is
throwing away the budget limitations, but we have no idea what
limitations are replacing them.
In other words, we are now acting in Congress the way the Congress
acted before 1974 with the passage of the Budget Act. For all practical
purposes, whatever the Committee on the Budget has proposed is
considered as being irrelevant. There are no rules except the rules
designed on an ad hoc basis, anonymously, by the gentleman from Texas
and his other fellow leaders, and that is no way to run a railroad much
less run a legislative representative body.

{time} 1400

Mr. LINDER. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume.
Mr. Speaker, a couple of days ago I was talking with a gentleman from
the other side of the Capitol about the appropriation process, and he
said that he was deeply involved in the Foreign Ops appropriations bill
and that the Members on both sides had agreed on all the differences
from the House to the Senate on Foreign Ops.
However, he could not get any Members on the minority party or the
White House to meet with them. They refused to meet, including the
White House. Because they have this strategy to drag it out, stretch it
out, do not agree to anything, complain about everything; and then one
day, as the Majority Whip said, we will be here in October with a huge
appropriations bill that will take in several of these 13
appropriations bills and they will get to spend more money. We heard
that throughout this process on 13 bills that we are not spending
enough.
Mr. HOYER. Mr. Speaker, will the gentleman yield?
Mr. LINDER. I yield to the gentleman from Maryland.
Mr. HOYER. Mr. Speaker, I understand the proposition of the
gentleman. The Majority Whip made that, as well.
If that is the case, why does not the majority, which controls both
Houses, send the bills as they think they ought to be to the White
House and let them veto them and let the American public see what is
going on?
Mr. LINDER. Mr. Speaker, reclaiming my time, we would very much like
to do that. But if 41 of the Democrats on the other side of the Capitol
determine to filibuster, they can stop anything from happening.
As the gentleman knows, they have to have 60 votes in that body. They
are determined not to let anything move at all, not even to let them
bring it up without all kinds of amendments that are not germane to the
process, which, in a body that has only two rules, unanimous consent
and exhaustion, they can put anything on a bill. So they are slowing it
down.
The fact of the matter is that this House has voted to pass all three
of these provisions before. These provisions are before us again today.
We are trying to get these passed and out of these bodies so that the
President can veto them, because we expect that he will. Then we will
be back in September dealing with the differences.
It would be easier if they would engage us today and help us with
these differences today and move forward with the process.
So I would say to my colleagues that this rule, while cumbersome, not
pretty, is a rule that gets the process moving. It is not new to us. We
remember when Speaker Wright did this some years ago. But it does get
the process moving.
Let us get to the debate on the bills, the substance of the bills.
Let us move this process. And let us get out of town for our district
work period knowing that we passed, if not all of them, all but maybe
one of them, hopefully all of them, before August, something that has
not been done in modern times.
Mr. Speaker, I yield back the balance of my time, and I move the
previous question on the resolution.
The previous question was ordered.

Announcement by the Speaker Pro Tempore

The SPEAKER pro tempore (Mr. Barrett of Nebraska). The Chair again
must remind Members to avoid improper references to the Senate,
including characterizations of their actions.
The question is on the resolution.
The question was taken; and the Speaker pro tempore announced that
the noes appeared to have it.
Mr. LINDER. 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. Pursuant to clause 8 of rule XX, further
proceedings on the resolution are postponed.
The point of no quorum is considered withdrawn.

____________________