(House of Representatives - June 25, 1996)

Text available as:

Formatting necessary for an accurate reading of this text may be shown by tags (e.g., <DELETED> or <BOLD>) or may be missing from this TXT display. For complete and accurate display of this text, see the PDF.

[Pages H6767-H6797]
From the Congressional Record Online through the Government Publishing Office []

[[Page H6767]]

                        APPROPRIATIONS ACT, 1997

  Mr. QUILLEN. Mr. Speaker, by direction of the Committee on Rules, I 
call up House Resolution 456 and ask for its immediate consideration.
  The Clerk read the resolution, as follows:

                               H.Res. 456

       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. 3666) making appropriations for the Department 
     of Veterans Affairs and Housing and Urban Development, and 
     for sundry independent agencies, boards, commissions, 
     corporations, and offices for the fiscal year ending 
     September 30, 1997, and for other purposes. The first reading 
     of the bill shall be dispensed with. Points of order against 
     consideration of the bill for failure to comply with clause 
     2(l)(6) of rule XI, clause 7 of rule XXI, or section 302(f) 
     of the Congressional Budget Act of 1974 are waived. General 
     debate shall be confined to the bill and shall not exceed one 
     hour equally divided and controlled by the chairman and 
     ranking minority member of the Committee on Appropriations. 
     After general debate the bill shall be considered for 
     amendment under the five-minute rule. Points of order against 
     provisions in the bill (other than sections 204 and 205) for 
     failure to comply with clause 2 or 6 of rule XXI are waived. 
     The amendment printed in section 2 of this resolution shall 
     be considered as adopted in the House and in the Committee of 
     the Whole. During consideration of the bill for 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 postpone until a time during 
     further consideration in the Committee of the Whole a 
     request for a recorded vote on any amendment. The Chairman 
     of the Committee of the Whole may reduce to not less than 
     five minutes the time for voting by electronic device on 
     any postponed question that immediately follows another 
     vote by electronic device without intervening business, 
     provided that the time for voting by electronic device on 
     the first in any series of questions shall be not less 
     than fifteen minutes. After the reading of the final lines 
     of the bill, a motion that the Committee of the Whole rise 
     and report the bill to the House with such amendments as 
     may have been adopted shall, if offered by the majority 
     leader or a designee, have precedence over a motion to 
     amend. 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 amendments thereto to final passage without 
     intervening motion except one motion to recommit with or 
     without instructions.
       Sec. 2. The amendment considered as adopted in the House 
     and in the Committee of the Whole is as follows:
       Page 68, line 23, strike ``future legislation'' and insert 
     in lieu thereof ``future appropriations legislation''.

                              {time}  1345

  The SPEAKER pro tempore (Mr. Hastings of Washington). The gentleman 
from Tennessee [Mr. Quillen] is recognized for 1 hour.
  Mr. QUILLEN. 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. QUILLEN asked and was given permission to revise and extend his 
remarks and include extraneous material.)
  Mr. QUILLEN. Mr. Speaker, House Resolution 456 is an open rule 
providing for the consideration of H.R. 3666, making appropriations for 
the Departments of Veterans Affairs, Housing and Urban Development and 
independent agencies for fiscal year 1997.
  The rule waives points of order against the bill for failure to 
comply with clause 2(l)(6) of rule XI and clause 7 of rule XXI, which 
require the 3-day availability of the printed hearings and committee 
reports on appropriations bills. However, I'd like to inform Members 
that the committee report has been available since last Wednesday.
  The rule additionally waives clause 2 of rule XXI prohibiting 
unauthorized appropriations and legislation on an appropriations bill, 
and clause 6 of rule XXI, prohibiting transfers of unobligated 
balances, against the bill with the exception of sections 204 and 205. 
These two sections pertain to housing matters, and have been left 
unprotected at the request of the chairman of the authorizing 
committee, Mr. Leach.
  Section 302(F) of the Budget Act is waived against consideration of 
the bill, and the rule provides for adoption of the amendment printed 
in section 2 of this resolution to remedy the Budget Act violation.
  The rule allows for 1 hour of general debate, and provides priority 
in recognition to those amendments that are preprinted in the 
Congressional Record. Under the rule, the Chair may postpone and 
cluster rollcall votes, and may reduce voting time to 5 minutes on a 
postponed question if the vote follows a 15-minute vote.
  This rule allows the majority leader or his designee to offer a 
motion to rise and report the bill after the final lines of the bill 
have been read.
  Finally, the rule allows one motion to recommit, with or without 
   Mr. Speaker, once again, Chairman Jerry Lewis and Ranking Minority 
Member Lou Stokes have done an outstanding job of addressing the needs 
of our country's veterans by ensuring

[[Page H6768]]

adequate funding to provide compensation and pension benefits, 
educational and vocational training, housing credit assistance, and 
medical care for over 70 million recipients of veterans benefits. There 
is a VA medical center located in my district in Johnson City, TN, and 
I've seen first hand the critical medical needs of our veterans and I'm 
proud of the excellent medical care provided by all of the VA medical 
centers across the country.
   Mr. Speaker, I'm pleased to see that this bill provides an increase 
in spending for veterans programs--these funds are desperately needed 
to ensure that our veterans get the benefits they deserve for their 
unselfish devotion and sacrifice to their country.
  H.R. 3666 also provides funding to meet the housing needs of the 
poor, the elderly, the disabled, and the homeless. Additionally, the 
bill funds various independent agencies, including the Environmental 
Protection Agency, NASA, FEMA, and others.
  The Appropriations Committee did a remarkable job at funding all of 
these important programs at sufficient levels while still contributing 
toward the ultimate goal of achieving a balanced budget. I applaud 
their bipartisan spirit and I urge my colleagues to support this open 
rule and this important appropriations bill.
   Mr. Speaker, I include the following material for the Record:

                                              [As of June 19, 1996]                                             
                                                  103d Congress                        104th Congress           
              Rule type              ---------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                       Number of rules    Percent of total   Number of rules    Percent of total
Open/Modified-Open \2\..............                 46                 44                 75                 60
Structured/Modified Closed \3\......                 49                 47                 33                 26
Closed \4\..........................                  9                  9                 17                 14
      Total.........................                104                100                125                100
\1\ This table applies only to rules which provide for the original consideration of bills, joint resolutions or
  budget resolutions and which provide for an amendment process. It does not apply to special rules which only  
  waive points of order against appropriations bills which are already privileged and are considered under an   
  open amendment process under House rules.                                                                     
\2\ An open rule is one under which any Member may offer a germane amendment under the five-minute rule. A      
  modified open rule is one under which any Member may offer a germane amendment under the five-minute rule     
  subject only to an overall time limit on the amendment process and/or a requirement that the amendment be     
  preprinted in the Congressional Record.                                                                       
\3\ A structured or modified closed rule is one under which the Rules Committee limits the amendments that may  
  be offered only to those amendments designated in the special rule or the Rules Committee report to accompany 
  it, or which preclude amendments to a particular portion of a bill, even though the rest of the bill may be   
  completely open to amendment.                                                                                 
\4\ A closed rule is one under which no amendments may be offered (other than amendments recommended by the     
  committee in reporting the bill).                                                                             

                          SPECIAL RULES REPORTED BY THE RULES COMMITTEE, 104TH CONGRESS                         
                                              [As of June 19, 1996]                                             
                                                                                                 Disposition of 
    H. Res. No. (Date rept.)         Rule type           Bill No.              Subject                rule      
H. Res. 38 (1/18/95)...........  O................  H.R. 5...........  Unfunded Mandate        A: 350-71 (1/19/ 
                                                                        Reform.                 95).            
H. Res. 44 (1/24/95)...........  MC...............  H. Con. Res. 17..  Social Security.......  A: 255-172 (1/25/
                                                    H.J. Res. 1......  Balanced Budget Amdt..   95).            
H. Res. 51 (1/31/95)...........  O................  H.R. 101.........  Land Transfer, Taos     A: voice vote (2/
                                                                        Pueblo Indians.         1/95).          
H. Res. 52 (1/31/95)...........  O................  H.R. 400.........  Land Exchange, Arctic   A: voice vote (2/
                                                                        Nat'l. Park and         1/95).          
H. Res. 53 (1/31/95)...........  O................  H.R. 440.........  Land Conveyance, Butte  A: voice vote (2/
                                                                        County, Calif.          1/95).          
H. Res. 55 (2/1/95)............  O................  H.R. 2...........  Line Item Veto........  A: voice vote (2/
H. Res. 60 (2/6/95)............  O................  H.R. 665.........  Victim Restitution....  A: voice vote (2/
H. Res. 61 (2/6/95)............  O................  H.R. 666.........  Exclusionary Rule       A: voice vote (2/
                                                                        Reform.                 7/95).          
H. Res. 63 (2/8/95)............  MO...............  H.R. 667.........  Violent Criminal        A: voice vote (2/
                                                                        Incarceration.          9/95).          
H. Res. 69 (2/9/95)............  O................  H.R. 668.........  Criminal Alien          A: voice vote (2/
                                                                        Deportation.            10/95).         
H. Res. 79 (2/10/95)...........  MO...............  H.R. 728.........  Law Enforcement Block   A: voice vote (2/
                                                                        Grants.                 13/95).         
H. Res. 83 (2/13/95)...........  MO...............  H.R. 7...........  National Security       PQ: 229-199; A:  
                                                                        Revitalization.         227-197 (2/15/  
H. Res. 88 (2/16/95)...........  MC...............  H.R. 831.........  Health Insurance        PQ: 230-191; A:  
                                                                        Deductibility.          229-188 (2/21/  
H. Res. 91 (2/21/95)...........  O................  H.R. 830.........  Paperwork Reduction     A: voice vote (2/
                                                                        Act.                    22/95).         
H. Res. 92 (2/21/95)...........  MC...............  H.R. 889.........  Defense Supplemental..  A: 282-144 (2/22/
H. Res. 93 (2/22/95)...........  MO...............  H.R. 450.........  Regulatory Transition   A: 252-175 (2/23/
                                                                        Act.                    95).            
H. Res. 96 (2/24/95)...........  MO...............  H.R. 1022........  Risk Assessment.......  A: 253-165 (2/27/
H. Res. 100 (2/27/95)..........  O................  H.R. 926.........  Regulatory Reform and   A: voice vote (2/
                                                                        Relief Act.             28/95).         
H. Res. 101 (2/28/95)..........  MO...............  H.R. 925.........  Private Property        A: 271-151 (3/2/ 
                                                                        Protection Act.         95).            
H. Res. 103 (3/3/95)...........  MO...............  H.R. 1058........  Securities Litigation   .................
H. Res. 104 (3/3/95)...........  MO...............  H.R. 988.........  Attorney                A: voice vote (3/
                                                                        Accountability Act.     6/95).          
H. Res. 105 (3/6/95)...........  MO...............  .................  ......................  A: 257-155 (3/7/ 
H. Res. 108 (3/7/95)...........  Debate...........  H.R. 956.........  Product Liability       A: voice vote (3/
                                                                        Reform.                 8/95).          
H. Res. 109 (3/8/95)...........  MC...............  .................  ......................  PQ: 234-191 A:   
                                                                                                247-181 (3/9/   
H. Res. 115 (3/14/95)..........  MO...............  H.R. 1159........  Making Emergency Supp.  A: 242-190 (3/15/
                                                                        Approps.                95).            
H. Res. 116 (3/15/95)..........  MC...............  H.J. Res. 73.....  Term Limits Const.      A: voice vote (3/
                                                                        Amdt.                   28/95).         
H. Res. 117 (3/16/95)..........  Debate...........  H.R. 4...........  Personal                A: voice vote (3/
                                                                        Responsibility Act of   21/95).         
H. Res. 119 (3/21/95)..........  MC...............  .................  ......................  A: 217-211 (3/22/
H. Res. 125 (4/3/95)...........  O................  H.R. 1271........  Family Privacy          A: 423-1 (4/4/   
                                                                        Protection Act.         95).            
H. Res. 126 (4/3/95)...........  O................  H.R. 660.........  Older Persons Housing   A: voice vote (4/
                                                                        Act.                    6/95).          
H. Res. 128 (4/4/95)...........  MC...............  H.R. 1215........  Contract With America   A: 228-204 (4/5/ 
                                                                        Tax Relief Act of       95).            
H. Res. 130 (4/5/95)...........  MC...............  H.R. 483.........  Medicare Select          A: 253-172 (4/6/
                                                                        Expansion.              95).            
H. Res. 136 (5/1/95)...........  O................  H.R. 655.........  Hydrogen Future Act of  A: voice vote (5/
                                                                        1995.                   2/95).          
H. Res. 139 (5/3/95)...........  O................  H.R. 1361........  Coast Guard Auth. FY    A: voice vote (5/
                                                                        1996.                   9/95).          
H. Res. 140 (5/9/95)...........  O................  H.R. 961.........  Clean Water Amendments  A: 414-4 (5/10/  
H. Res. 144 (5/11/95)..........  O................  H.R. 535.........  Fish Hatchery--         A: voice vote (5/
                                                                        Arkansas.               15/95).         
H. Res. 145 (5/11/95)..........  O................  H.R. 584.........  Fish Hatchery--Iowa...  A: voice vote (5/
H. Res. 146 (5/11/95)..........  O................  H.R. 614.........  Fish Hatchery--         A: voice vote (5/
                                                                        Minnesota.              15/95).         
H. Res. 149 (5/16/95)..........  MC...............  H. Con. Res. 67..  Budget Resolution FY    PQ: 252-170 A:   
                                                                        1996.                   255-168 (5/17/  
H. Res. 155 (5/22/95)..........  MO...............  H.R. 1561........  American Overseas       A: 233-176 (5/23/
                                                                        Interests Act.          95).            
H. Res. 164 (6/8/95)...........  MC...............  H.R. 1530........  Nat. Defense Auth. FY   PQ: 225-191 A:   
                                                                        1996.                   233-183 (6/13/  
H. Res. 167 (6/15/95)..........  O................  H.R. 1817........  MilCon Appropriations   PQ: 223-180 A:   
                                                                        FY 1996.                245-155 (6/16/  
H. Res. 169 (6/19/95)..........  MC...............  H.R. 1854........  Leg. Branch Approps.    PQ: 232-196 A:   
                                                                        FY 1996.                236-191 (6/20/  
H. Res. 170 (6/20/95)..........  O................  H.R. 1868........  For. Ops. Approps. FY   PQ: 221-178 A:   
                                                                        1996.                   217-175 (6/22/  
H. Res. 171 (6/22/95)..........  O................  H.R. 1905........  Energy & Water          A: voice vote (7/
                                                                        Approps. FY 1996.       12/95).         
H. Res. 173 (6/27/95)..........  C................  H.J. Res. 79.....  Flag Constitutional     PQ: 258-170 A:   
                                                                        Amendment.              271-152 (6/28/  
H. Res. 176 (6/28/95)..........  MC...............  H.R. 1944........  Emer. Supp. Approps...  PQ: 236-194 A:   
                                                                                                234-192 (6/29/  
H. Res. 185 (7/11/95)..........  O................  H.R. 1977........  Interior Approps. FY    PQ: 235-193 D:   
                                                                        1996.                   192-238 (7/12/  
H. Res. 187 (7/12/95)..........  O................  H.R. 1977........  Interior Approps. FY    PQ: 230-194 A:   
                                                                        1996 #2.                229-195 (7/13/  
H. Res. 188 (7/12/95)..........  O................  H.R. 1976........  Agriculture Approps.    PQ: 242-185 A:   
                                                                        FY 1996.                voice vote (7/18/
H. Res. 190 (7/17/95)..........  O................  H.R. 2020........  Treasury/Postal         PQ: 232-192 A:   
                                                                        Approps. FY 1996.       voice vote (7/18/
H. Res. 193 (7/19/95)..........  C................  H.J. Res. 96.....  Disapproval of MFN to   A: voice vote (7/
                                                                        China.                  20/95).         
H. Res. 194 (7/19/95)..........  O................  H.R. 2002........  Transportation          PQ: 217-202 (7/21/
                                                                        Approps. FY 1996.       95).            
H. Res. 197 (7/21/95)..........  O................  H.R. 70..........  Exports of Alaskan      A: voice vote (7/
                                                                        Crude Oil.              24/95).         
H. Res. 198 (7/21/95)..........  O................  H.R. 2076........  Commerce, State         A: voice vote (7/
                                                                        Approps. FY 1996.       25/95).         
H. Res. 201 (7/25/95)..........  O................  H.R. 2099........  VA/HUD Approps. FY      A: 230-189 (7/25/
                                                                        1996.                   95).            
H. Res. 204 (7/28/95)..........  MC...............  S. 21............  Terminating U.S. Arms   A: voice vote (8/
                                                                        Embargo on Bosnia.      1/95).          
H. Res. 205 (7/28/95)..........  O................  H.R. 2126........  Defense Approps. FY     A: 409-1 (7/31/  
                                                                        1996.                   95).            
H. Res. 207 (8/1/95)...........  MC...............  H.R. 1555........  Communications Act of   A: 255-156 (8/2/ 
                                                                        1995.                   95).            
H. Res. 208 (8/1/95)...........  O................  H.R. 2127........  Labor, HHS Approps. FY  A: 323-104 (8/2/ 
                                                                        1996.                   95).            
H. Res. 215 (9/7/95)...........  O................  H.R. 1594........  Economically Targeted   A: voice vote (9/
                                                                        Investments.            12/95).         
H. Res. 216 (9/7/95)...........  MO...............  H.R. 1655........  Intelligence            A: voice vote (9/
                                                                        Authorization FY 1996.  12/95).         
H. Res. 218 (9/12/95)..........  O................  H.R. 1162........  Deficit Reduction       A: voice vote (9/
                                                                        Lockbox.                13/95).         
H. Res. 219 (9/12/95)..........  O................  H.R. 1670........  Federal Acquisition     A: 414-0 (9/13/  
                                                                        Reform Act.             95).            
H. Res. 222 (9/18/95)..........  O................  H.R. 1617........  CAREERS Act...........  A: 388-2 (9/19/  
H. Res. 224 (9/19/95)..........  O................  H.R. 2274........  Natl. Highway System..  PQ: 241-173 A:   
                                                                                                375-39-1 (9/20/ 

[[Page H6769]]

H. Res. 225 (9/19/95)..........  MC...............  H.R. 927.........  Cuban Liberty & Dem.    A: 304-118 (9/20/
                                                                        Solidarity.             95).            
H. Res. 226 (9/21/95)..........  O................  H.R. 743.........  Team Act..............  A: 344-66-1 (9/27/
H. Res. 227 (9/21/95)..........  O................  H.R. 1170........  3-Judge Court.........  A: voice vote (9/
H. Res. 228 (9/21/95)..........  O................  H.R. 1601........  Internatl. Space        A: voice vote (9/
                                                                        Station.                27/95).         
H. Res. 230 (9/27/95)..........  C................  H.J. Res. 108....  Continuing Resolution   A: voice vote (9/
                                                                        FY 1996.                28/95).         
H. Res. 234 (9/29/95)..........  O................  H.R. 2405........  Omnibus Science Auth..  A: voice vote (10/
H. Res. 237 (10/17/95).........  MC...............  H.R. 2259........  Disapprove Sentencing   A: voice vote (10/
                                                                        Guidelines.             18/95).         
H. Res. 238 (10/18/95).........  MC...............  H.R. 2425........  Medicare Preservation   PQ: 231-194 A:   
                                                                        Act.                    227-192 (10/19/ 
H. Res. 239 (10/19/95).........  C................  H.R. 2492........  Leg. Branch Approps...  PQ: 235-184 A:   
                                                                                                voice vote (10/ 
H. Res. 245 (10/25/95).........  MC...............  H. Con. Res. 109.  Social Security         PQ: 228-191 A:   
                                                    H.R. 2491........   Earnings Reform.        235-185 (10/26/ 
                                                                       Seven-Year Balanced      95).            
H. Res. 251 (10/31/95).........  C................  H.R. 1833........  Partial Birth Abortion  A: 237-190 (11/1/
                                                                        Ban.                    95).            
H. Res. 252 (10/31/95).........  MO...............  H.R. 2546........  D.C. Approps..........  A: 241-181 (11/1/
H. Res. 257 (11/7/95)..........  C................  H.J. Res. 115....  Cont. Res. FY 1996....  A: 216-210 (11/8/
H. Res. 258 (11/8/95)..........  MC...............  H.R. 2586........  Debt Limit............  A: 220-200 (11/10/
H. Res. 259 (11/9/95)..........  O................  H.R. 2539........  ICC Termination Act...  A: voice vote (11/
H. Res. 262 (11/9/95)..........  C................  H.R. 2586........  Increase Debt Limit...  A: 220-185 (11/10/
H. Res. 269 (11/15/95).........  O................  H.R. 2564........  Lobbying Reform.......  A: voice vote (11/
H. Res. 270 (11/15/95).........  C................  H.J. Res. 122....  Further Cont.           A: 249-176 (11/15/
                                                                        Resolution.             95).            
H. Res. 273 (11/16/95).........  MC...............  H.R. 2606........  Prohibition on Funds    A: 239-181 (11/17/
                                                                        for Bosnia.             95).            
H. Res. 284 (11/29/95).........  O................  H.R. 1788........  Amtrak Reform.........  A: voice vote (11/
H. Res. 287 (11/30/95).........  O................  H.R. 1350........  Maritime Security Act.  A: voice vote (12/
H. Res. 293 (12/7/95)..........  C................  H.R. 2621........  Protect Federal Trust   PQ: 223-183 A:   
                                                                        Funds.                  228-184 (12/14/ 
H. Res. 303 (12/13/95).........  O................  H.R. 1745........  Utah Public Lands.....  PQ: 221-197 A:   
                                                                                                voice vote (5/15/
H. Res. 309 (12/18/95).........  C................  H. Con. Res. 122.  Budget Res. W/          PQ: 230-188 A:   
                                                                        President.              229-189 (12/19/ 
H. Res. 313 (12/19/95).........  O................  H.R. 558.........  Texas Low-Level         A: voice vote (12/
                                                                        Radioactive.            20/95).         
H. Res. 323 (12/21/95).........  C................  H.R. 2677........  Natl. Parks & Wildlife  Tabled (2/28/96).
H. Res. 366 (2/27/96)..........  MC...............  H.R. 2854........  Farm Bill.............  PQ: 228-182 A:   
                                                                                                244-168 (2/28/  
H. Res. 368 (2/28/96)..........  O................  H.R. 994.........  Small Business Growth.  Tabled (4/17/96).
H. Res. 371 (3/6/96)...........  C................  H.R. 3021........  Debt Limit Increase...  A: voice vote (3/
H. Res. 372 (3/6/96)...........  MC...............  H.R. 3019........  Cont. Approps. FY 1996  PQ: voice vote A:
                                                                                                235-175 (3/7/   
H. Res. 380 (3/12/96)..........  C................  H.R. 2703........  Effective Death         A: 251-157 (3/13/
                                                                        Penalty.                96).            
H. Res. 384 (3/14/96)..........  MC...............  H.R. 2202........  Immigration...........  PQ: 233-152 A:   
                                                                                                voice vote (3/19/
H. Res. 386 (3/20/96)..........  C................  H.J. Res. 165....  Further Cont. Approps.  PQ: 234-187 A:   
                                                                                                237-183 (3/21/  
H. Res. 388 (3/21/96)..........  C................  H.R. 125.........  Gun Crime Enforcement.  A: 244-166 (3/22/
H. Res. 391 (3/27/96)..........  C................  H.R. 3136........  Contract w/America      PQ: 232-180 A:   
                                                                        Advancement.            232-177, (3/28/ 
H. Res. 392 (3/27/96)..........  MC...............  H.R. 3103........  Health Coverage         PQ: 229-186 A:   
                                                                        Affordability.          Voice Vote (3/29/
H. Res. 395 (3/29/96)..........  MC...............  H.J. Res. 159....  Tax Limitation Const.   PQ: 232-168 A:   
                                                                        Amdmt..                 234-162 (4/15/  
H. Res. 396 (3/29/96)..........  O................  H.R. 842.........  Truth in Budgeting Act  A: voice vote (4/
H. Res. 409 (4/23/96)..........  O................  H.R. 2715........  Paperwork Elimination   A: voice vote (4/
                                                                        Act.                    24/96).         
H. Res. 410 (4/23/96)..........  O................  H.R. 1675........  Natl. Wildlife Refuge.  A: voice vote (4/
H. Res. 411 (4/23/96)..........  C................  H.J. Res. 175....  Further Cont. Approps.  A: voice vote (4/
                                                                        FY 1996.                24/96).         
H. Res. 418 (4/30/96)..........  O................  H.R. 2641........  U.S. Marshals Service.  PQ: 219-203 A:   
                                                                                                voice vote (5/1/
H. Res. 419 (4/30/96)..........  O................  H.R. 2149........  Ocean Shipping Reform.  A: 422-0 (5/1/   
H. Res. 421 (5/2/96)...........  O................  H.R. 2974........  Crimes Against          A: voice vote (5/
                                                                        Children & Elderly.     7/96).          
H. Res. 422 (5/2/96)...........  O................  H.R. 3120........  Witness & Jury          A: voice vote (5/
                                                                        Tampering.              7/96).          
H. Res. 426 (5/7/96)...........  O................  H.R. 2406........  U.S. Housing Act of     PQ: 218-208 A:   
                                                                        1996.                   voice vote (5/8/
H. Res. 427 (5/7/96)...........  O................  H.R. 3322........  Omnibus Civilian        A: voice vote (5/
                                                                        Science Auth.           9/96).          
H. Res. 428 (5/7/96)...........  MC...............  H.R. 3286........  Adoption Promotion &    A: voice vote (5/
                                                                        Stability.              9/96).          
H. Res. 430 (5/9/96)...........  S................  H.R. 3230........  DoD Auth. FY 1997.....  A: 235-149 (5/10/
H. Res. 435 (5/15/96)..........  MC...............  H. Con. Res. 178.  Con. Res. on the        PQ: 227-196 A:   
                                                                        Budget, 1997.           voice vote (5/16/
H. Res. 436 (5/16/96)..........  C................  H.R. 3415........  Repeal 4.3 cent fuel    PQ: 221-181 A:   
                                                                        tax.                    voice vote (5/21/
H. Res. 437 (5/16/96)..........  MO...............  H.R. 3259........  Intell. Auth. FY 1997.  A: voice vote (5/
H. Res. 438 (5/16/96)..........  MC...............  H.R. 3144........  Defend America Act....  .................
H. Res. 440 (5/21/96)..........  MC...............  H.R. 3448........  Small Bus. Job          A: 219-211 (5/22/
                                                                        Protection.             96).            
                                 MC...............  H.R. 1227........  Employee Commuting      .................
H. Res. 442 (5/29/96)..........  O................  H.R. 3517........  Mil. Const. Approps.    A: voice vote (5/
                                                                        FY 1997.                30/96).         
H. Res. 445 (5/30/96)..........  O................  H.R. 3540........  For. Ops. Approps. FY   A: voice vote (6/
                                                                        1997.                   5/96).          
H. Res. 446 (6/5/96)...........  MC...............  H.R. 3562........  WI Works Waiver         A: 363-59 (6/6/  
                                                                        Approval.               96).            
H. Res. 448 (6/6/96)...........  MC...............  H.R. 2754........  Shipbuilding Trade      A: voice vote (6/
                                                                        Agreement.              12/96).         
H. Res. 451 (6/10/96)..........  O................  H.R. 3603........  Agriculture             A: voice vote (6/
                                                                        Appropriations, FY      11/96).         
H. Res. 453 (6/12/96)..........  O................  H.R. 3610........  Defense                 A: voice vote (6/
                                                                        Appropriations, FY      13/96).         
H. Res. 455 (6/18/96)..........  O................  H.R. 3662........  Interior Approps, FY    A: voice vote (6/
                                                                        1997.                   19/96).         
H. Res. 456 (6/19/96)..........  O................  H.R. 3666........  VA/HUD Approps........  .................
Codes: O-open rule; MO-modified open rule; MC-modified closed rule; S/C-structured/closed rule; A-adoption vote;
  D-defeated; PQ-previous question vote. Source: Notices of Action Taken, Committee on Rules, 104th Congress.   

  Mr. QUILLEN. 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 in support of this rule. This is an open rule 
which will allow for amendment and ample debate on the important issues 
related to funding for the Veterans' Administration and the Department 
of Housing and Urban Development. However, many of my colleagues will 
oppose this rule and during the debate, it is my intention to yield to 
opponents in order to allow them the opportunity to explain their 
  Mr. Speaker, I also rise in support of H.R. 3666. This bill reflects 
a spirit of cooperation between the majority and minority to craft an 
appropriation for these agencies that was not present in the last 
funding cycle. I commend the subcommittee chairman, Mr. Lewis, for 
working closely with his ranking minority member, Mr. Stokes, to create 
this bill.
  Mr. Speaker, the programs funded by this appropriation affect a wide 
range of essential Government services and projects--everything from 
low-income housing, to health care for our Nation's veterans, to our 
space program. Reconciling the funding needs of all these programs 
within the limits established by the budget resolution is no easy task. 
While this bill is not perfect and many Members may disagree with the 
priorities it establishes, this bill does reflect an honest attempt to 
fashion a bipartisan agreement.
  I would also like to thank the Appropriations Committee for providing 
the funds necessary to begin construction of a new national veterans 
cemetery for the Dallas/Fort Worth area. For nearly 10 years I have 
worked closely with north Texas veterans to establish this cemetery. 
The Dallas/Fort Worth area is home to one of the most concentrated 
veterans' populations in the country--more than 1 million people 
eligible for burial in a veterans cemetery live within 100 miles of the 
site of this new cometary, yet there are currently no burial facilities 
for eligible veterans in this area. The Veterans' Administration has 
cited the North Texas region as one of the top 10 areas in the Nation 
most in need of additional burial space.
  This funding, a total of $16.2 million, will change this situation 
and will enable this facility to open by the spring of 1999. For the 
veterans of the north Texas region who have worked so diligently on 
this project, the inclusion of these funds is the culmination of years 
of work. I want to thank them for all of their assistance in seeing 
this project through, from start to finish. I also want to especially 
thank Chairman Lewis and Mr. Stokes for ensuring that this project was 
included in this appropriations bill.
  Mr. Speaker, while this bill does not adequately fund many programs 
that are of vital importance to many Americans, we all understand that 
funding levels for domestic programs are rapidly shrinking. Given that 
fact, this bill represents an honest effort to fund the programs 
encompassed by the VA-HUD appropriations bill, and I urge support of 
this rule so that the House may move on to the consideration of this 

[[Page H6770]]

  Mr. Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.
  Mr. QUILLEN. Mr. Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the distinguished 
gentleman from Florida [Mr. Goss].
  (Mr. GOSS asked and was given permission to revise and extend his 
  Mr. GOSS. Mr. Speaker, I thank the distinguished chairman emeritus, 
Mr. Quillen, for yielding me the time. I rise in support of this open 
rule. I'd like to commend Chairman Lewis and ranking member Stokes for 
demonstrating that, even in this charged partisan environment, 
Republicans and Democrats can work together for the good of our 
citizens. The bipartisan cooperation that is evident in this VA-HUD 
appropriations bill is certainly a welcome breath of fresh air in 
  I am pleased to point out that this legislation provides funding for 
some of this Nation's highest priority commitments--those that we have 
made to our veterans. For too many years we have seen precious 
veterans' dollars parceled out to support projects in areas of the 
country where veterans' populations are declining, while those regions 
with growing populations of veterans made do on shoestring budgets. I 
am pleased to note that we have reversed that trend, and this 
legislation continues the effort to send the dollars where the veterans 
are. Veterans in southwest Florida know that we spent years seeking the 
modest funding needed to expand our dreadfully overworked and under-
resourced Fort Myers Outpatient Veterans Clinic. This year, as part of 
the omnibus spending bill we passed a few months ago, we finally got 
the funding secured and the leasing effort is currently underway--so 
that in short order we will be able to provide more services to more 
people in our area. I wish to once again thank Chairman Lewis and 
Ranking Member Stokes, as well as Chairman Stump and Chairman 
Livingston for their assistance in making that a promise kept--at long 
last--to our more than 150,000 southwest Florida veterans.
  Mr. Speaker, there is a ``Dear Colleague'' going around that talks 
about some turf fight going on with regard to this matter. I would 
suggest that the rule we have is a good, open rule and will get the job 
done, and I urge support for this rule from all colleagues.
  Mr. FROST. Mr. Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from New 
Jersey [Mr. Pallone].
  Mr. PALLONE. Mr. Speaker, I rise in opposition to the rule because 
the rule contains language that would amend the appropriation 
legislation to make $861 million of Superfund money contingent upon a 
future appropriation.
  Mr. Speaker, basically what happened is about a week ago, many of the 
Republicans involved in this legislation and some of the projects 
announced that they were going to provide significant funds for the 
Superfund program in this appropriations bill. But what we found out is 
that a significant part of that money, as I said, $861 million, is 
essentially not real. It was put in with a contingency that the 
Superfund bill would be reauthorized. Apparently the parliamentarian 
correctly ruled that that would have to be scored as an allocation 
under the appropriation which would raise the appropriation to a level 
that was unacceptable based on the allocations that had been provided 
by the Republican leadership. And so now in the rule the language is 
changed to say that this money is contingent upon a future 
appropriation. Well, when an appropriation is contingent upon a future 
appropriation, essentially there is no appropriation at all. What that 
means is that in a sense we are being told that money for the Superfund 
program will be made available that is not going to be made available. 
The level of funding for the Superfund program is actually about $50 
million less than what the administration proposed.
  In addition to that, there is every reason to believe that the idea 
behind this $860 million is to ultimately give it back to polluters in 
the forms of rebates, because the Superfund reauthorization bill that 
has been proposed by the Republican leadership would require the 
Federal Government to rebate to the polluters for moneys that they have 
already spent in cleaning up Superfund programs. That is not the way to 
go. The principle of the Superfund program is that the polluter pays, 
not the taxpayer. It would be wrong to sneak into this bill this kind 
of contingency that would suggest that that money would be going back 
to the polluters.
  Mr. Speaker, I am going to have some amendments later with the 
gentleman from Massachusetts [Mr. Markey] and the gentleman from 
Pennsylvania [Mr. Borski] to address these problems, and I would hope 
that I could get support from my colleagues.
  Mr. QUILLEN. Mr. Speaker, I yield 5 minutes to the distinguished 
gentleman from New York [Mr. Boehlert].
  (Mr. BOEHLERT asked and was given permission to revise and extend his 
  Mr. BOEHLERT. Mr. Speaker, I do wish to point out to the gentleman 
from New Jersey [Mr. Pallone] that the retroactive liability discount 
that concerned him also concerned me. That is off the table. That is 
not part of our proposal. That is history, as it should be.
  Mr. Speaker, I do want my colleagues to know that I rise in support 
of the rule and in support of H.R. 3666. This bill increases the 
funding for the Environmental Protection Agency over the fiscal year 
1996 spending levels. This is a good bill for the environment, and I 
urge Members to support it.
  I would like to commend Chairman Lewis and Chairman Livingston for 
providing $1.339 billion in funding for the current Superfund Program. 
I appreciate the constraints we face in this era of declining Federal 
spending. However, the cleanup of uncontrolled hazardous waste sites is 
very important and it must continue even though the statute that 
governs those programs is in desperate need of a major overhaul.

                              {time}  1400

  I wish my colleagues on the other side of the aisle, and we could get 
together and have that meeting for Superfund reform. What our Committee 
on the Budget and the Committee on Appropriations have done is provide 
a mechanism that will allow increased funding for Superfund when we get 
a bill. Let me stress that: when we get a bill that overhauls Superfund 
in a way that requires additional funding and when the Superfund taxes 
go back into effect.
  In the budget resolution, the gentleman from Ohio, [Mr. Kasich] 
provided a Superfund reserve account that allows him to increase the 
allocations of spending authority when new money is brought into the 
Treasury through the extension of those business taxes that fund the 
Superfund Programs. This reserve account will allow Chairman Lewis and 
Chairman Livingston to appropriate $2.2 billion, $861 million more than 
the current funding level for Superfund, without busting the budget. 
That is a responsible way to proceed.
  What the VA-HUD appropriations bill before us does is make the firm 
commitment that our Committee on Appropriations will appropriate that 
additional money after all the conditions are met. We are all 
committed to fully funding any reforms we make to the Superfund 
Program, and this bill demonstrates that we are ready, willing, and 
able to make good on those promises.

  Now, the gentleman from New Jersey [Mr. Pallone] and the gentleman 
from Pennsylvania [Mr. Borski], and I love them dearly, we work so well 
together, would like to call this promise smoke and mirrors. Well, it 
is not. The commitment to provide additional funding for a reformed 
Superfund is right there in black and white in the bill. All we need to 
do is agree on a Superfund reform package and reauthorize the Superfund 
taxes. So what are we waiting for? We are waiting for the 
administration and the leadership of the Democrat Party and the 
leadership of the Committee on Commerce from the Democrat side and the 
Democrat leadership of the Committee on Transportation to make good on 
their promises to work with us to achieve a fair and a responsible and 
fully funded reform of Superfund.
  Last year I was very hopeful that we could achieve a bipartisan 
agreement. I really felt good about it. As a matter of fact, in July 
1995, I issued a proposal to reform Superfund liability by allowing the 
most complex sites to proceed to clean up directly without waiting for 
years of litigation and negotiation among hundreds of parties. I wanted 

[[Page H6771]]

get out of the courts and get in the field and clean up these toxic 
waste sites. As a matter of fact, the EPA Administrator, Carol Browner, 
and I would love to call her Madam Secretary because I think that 
agency should be at Cabinet level, she called this proposal a very 
attractive proposal. Those are her words, not mine, but I was 
flattered. I agreed with her, as a matter of fact. She said it was one 
that the Clinton administration would feel very, very comfortable with, 
but the Administrator was pulled back by the political types at the 
White House.
  Quite frankly, I think somebody is whispering in the President's ear, 
shhh, do not do it. Do not do that Superfund reform. If you dare do it, 
then the Republicans will claim credit because they are in charge and 
they are the one that proposed it. Do not do it, Mr. President.
  Now, I am not one to question motivation, and I am not sure I have 
the inside track to the inside of the White House, but I think that is 
probably what happened.
  Now, if I were cynical, I would say there is a conscious effort to 
deny the Republicans, which are trying to go forward with responsible 
Superfund reform, with an opportunity to claim that we have done 
something meaningful in this very sensitive area. I would like to see 
us move ahead with Superfund reform. I think we are, I know we are very 
serious about it. We have been working very hard, long and hard, people 
like my good friend from Pennsylvania, Mr. Borski, and I, have had 
hearings on this subject, extensive discussions. I know my friend, the 
gentleman from Michigan [Mr. Dingell], who represents the southern part 
of the downriver area of Detroit is interested. We all are. Why are we 
not moving ahead with Superfund reform? We should be. Now is the 
opportunity. Let us do it, but this bill has the money to fund the 
program if we have the get up and go to do it.
  Mr. FROST. Mr. Speaker, I yield 6 minutes to the gentleman from 
Michigan [Mr. Dingell].
  (Mr. DINGELL asked and was given permission to revise and extend his 
  Mr. DINGELL. Mr. Speaker, I am sorry my friend, the gentleman from 
New York [Mr. Boehlert], has left the floor, because the remarks I am 
about to make would have been of some use to him.
  This is a wonderful day for scams and shams, and we are seeing them 
hard at work. I would like to first begin by telling the gentleman that 
they have the votes on that side. You want a Superfund bill? Report it 
out. If you want Democratic cooperation on a Superfund bill, talk to 
us, we will be glad to work with you.
  What is at stake now in the committee is that my Republican 
colleagues want a Superfund bill which pays the polluter. They want to 
pay the polluter. They do not want to have the polluter pay. Now, this 
is nothing more or less than conversion of Superfund into a fine 
polluter entitlement program.
  Now, having set the record straight, if the gentleman wants to 
support that kind of bill, I would urge him to work with Republican 
members of the Committee on Commerce, who are diligently working 
towards that end. The simple fact of the matter is that my Republican 
colleagues on the Committee on Commerce recognize that that stinks so 
bad that they cannot bring it to the floor. That is the problem.
  Now that I have enlightened my good friend, I want to talk about some 
other matters which are of concern here. We have heard that there are 
precious few dollars available for Superfund cleanup. Citizens have 
been waiting for cleanup for a long time, yet my Republican colleagues 
have spent much of the time of this Congress in crafting what I have 
already described as a polluter entitlement program and other 
mechanisms to spend money for paying polluters instead of paying for 
  Mr. Speaker, I recognize that the Superfund is a seriously flawed 
program, and I will support reasonable changes in it which will make it 
necessary for industry, which will reduce the enormous volume of 
litigation which that program contributes. I would remind my colleagues 
that when I was the chairman of the conference, I did everything I 
could to prevent that kind of situation obtaining with regard to 
Superfund. If I would have had more help from the gentleman from New 
York, and some of the other people that are now complaining about this, 
perhaps we would be discussing a different kind of Superfund package.
  I would like to think that this rule, which includes a self-executing 
amendment making $861 million available for the Superfund program 
contingent on the enactment of a subsequent appropriation bill 
extraordinary. I want to commend my good friend, the gentleman from New 
York, Closed Rule Solomon, the chairman of the Committee on Rules, for 
the innovation that has gone into that step, that it might provide more 
money for cleanup. Unfortunately, the rule here is just meaningless 
from the standpoint of providing any real money for the program.
  In short, we have no assurance that this money will ever be 
available. It is a wonderful paper entry, and what happened is my 
friends on the Republican side suddenly found that they had spent money 
which was going to break the budget, so they went then to the Committee 
on Rules to get that problem cured by converting the whole thing into 
what, frankly, is nothing more or less than a sham.
  In any event, if this money then becomes available under the 
legislation that the gentleman from New York [Mr. Boehlert] was 
speaking about, I can assume that the money will then be make available 
not for the cleanup of pollution but rather for paying polluters along 
the lines of the splendid ideas that my colleagues on the Republican 
side have been setting forth today.
  Last week we read with interest reports that the Committee on 
Appropriations had approved an additional $861 million for the 
Superfund program contingent on the enactment of a Superfund 
reauthorization bill. This now makes the appropriations of this money 
contingent on the passage of an appropriation bill. But the passage of 
the appropriation bill is not contingent on the passage of an 
authorization bill. So in point of fact, what is going to transpire 
here today is a great deal of nothing and probably a lot of subsequent 
finger pointing, but certainly nothing significant with regard to 
cleanup of pollution or Superfund site.
  The plan, I would note, which was put together was foiled when 
appropriators realized that CBO would have to score that money and, in 
the process, blow the caps off the VA-HUD bill and subject it to a 
fatal point of order under the budget act. So the Committee on Rules 
provided this wonderful and I say adroit self-executing amendment 
making the $861 million contingent on the enactment not of a future 
authorization bill but on the enactment of a subsequent appropriations 
bill, something I have never seen before in the few years that I have 
had the pleasure of serving this body.
  In other words, the new money will be appropriated in the future if 
new money is appropriated in the future. I hope that my colleagues on 
the Republican side have listened to that, because if there ever was a 
pea under the walnut shell game, this is it here.
  Let us see who is being fooled here. CBO does not have to score these 
additional funds because they are not being appropriated now. So all 
the claims we have heard from our chairmen that more money is available 
to finance their proposed Superfund reform are false. There is no 
  What about the VA-HUD subcommittee's ability to appropriate these 
funds in the future? They cannot do that without an increased 
allocation or authorization. Between the budget resolution, the 
Superfund bill, and the VA-HUD appropriation bills, there is almost 
$900 million waiting to spill out, blowing an even bigger hole in the 
fiscal 1997 budget deficit that most of my colleagues have found reason 
to be distressed about.
  Mr. Speaker, I would urge my colleagues to defeat this rule. It is a 
scam. It is a pea under the walnut shell, and I would urge my 
colleagues to look around and try and figure out under which walnut 
shell the pea is. I suspect that they will not be able to find the pea. 
In the great traditions of the carny showmen and scam artists who 
engage in that, I am certain that they will find that there is probably 
no pea at all here. Not a pea which has fallen under the table through 
a hole in the table, but it is probably in the hands of

[[Page H6772]]

one of my good Republican colleagues who is even at this minute 
clutching that pea with a hard grasp.
  I would simply urge my colleagues to vote no. This is a scam, this is 
a sham, this is a game. My Republican colleagues are not approving 
money for Superfund. They want to complain about the fact that the 
Democrats do not want to pass a bill on Superfund which will pay the 
polluter instead of causing the polluters to pay.
  Mr. Speaker, I include a communication to the chairmen for the 

     Hon. Thomas J. Bliley, Jr.
     Chairman, Committee on Commerce,
     Washington, DC.

     Hon. Bud Shuster,
     Chairman, Committee on Transportation and Infrastructure, 
         Washington, DC.

     Hon. Michael G. Oxley,
     Chairman, Subcommittee on Commerce, Trade, and Hazardous 
     Washington, DC.

     Hon. Sherwood L. Boehlert,
     Chairman, Subcommittee on Water Resources and Environment,
     Washington, DC.

       Dear Chairmen Bliley, Shuster, Oxley, and Boehlert: We are 
     writing concerning the status of Superfund reform 
     legislation. We greatly appreciate your efforts to seek a 
     bipartisan consensus on this issue. Democrats and Republicans 
     alike, as well as President Clinton and Administrator 
     Browner, agree on the need for Superfund reform. Thus, your 
     agreement in February to commence bipartisan negotiations was 
     a welcome departure from last year's divisive and partisan 
     proceedings. Since we commenced negotations in March, your 
     staffs and ours have spent significant time and energy, as 
     has the Administration, reviewing and analyzing scores of 
     issues, proposals, and counterproposals. These activities 
     have yielded a better understanding of each other's positions 
     and a narrowing of our disagreements in certain areas.
       Despite out mutual efforts, however, fundamental 
     differences continue to separate us. Perhaps the most obvious 
     example is our conviction that any responsible legislation 
     must conform to the basic ``polluter pays'' principle 
     underpinning the Superfund law. Upon careful analysis, we 
     have concluded that all of your liability proposals are 
     premised on some notion of ``paying the polluter.'' Your 
     rejection of the fundamental ``polluter pays'' principle 
     fails to meet our mutual objective of responsible reform.
       Regrettably, we view the three ``options'' that you 
     presented to us in your latest counterproposals as a mere 
     reiteration of positions taken by the Majority before our 
     negotiations began. Prior to our negotiations, Administrator 
     Browner and others testified before House and Senate 
     committees, and otherwise expressed their grave concerns 
     about the site carve-outs contained in H.R. 2500 as 
     introduced, and the wholesale exemptions for generators and 
     transporters of hazardous substances set forth in Mr. 
     Bliley's February 21 draft. Yet, we have been asked to choose 
     among three options based entirely upon these same carve-outs 
     and exemptions.
       Our inability to reach an agreement with one another on 
     this fundamental principle is particularly disappointing in 
     light of the amount of time and energy we all have expended 
     in the Superfund reform effort to date. During the 103rd 
     Congress, Democrats and Republicans worked together to 
     produce Superfund legislation that was approved unanimously 
     by the Energy and Commerce Committee and on a voice vote in 
     the Public Works and Transportation Committee. Seeking to 
     build on this bipartisan compromise, the Democratic 
     leadership of the two committees introduced H.R. 228 in 
     January 1995. It was a great disappointment to see our 
     compromise bill languish for ten months without so much as a 
     hint of bipartiship. The contentious Commerce subcommittee 
     markup in November confirmed the wide gulf between our vastly 
     different approaches to cleaning up toxic waste sites and 
     assuring that responsible parties and pay the costs of 
     cleanup. Unfortunately, it wasn't until February 1996, well 
     after the subcommittee vote, that you agreed to commerce 
     bipartisan negotiations.
       In the spirit of compromise, our April 1 proposals went 
     significantly beyond H.R. 228 to address the liability of 
     certain classes of parties, all within the framework of Mr. 
     Bliley's February 21 proposal. These proposals were a 
     significant step for us and for the Administration. We sought 
     to address the liability of the same responsible parties that 
     you specifically identified as most in need of relief, such 
     as small businesses, municipalities, and contributors of 
     minimal amounts of waste. Given the great deal of interest 
     which we share in affording relief to these parties, reducing 
     transaction costs, and most importantly expediting site 
     cleanup, we are most disappointed that we have progressed no 
     further toward achieving these mutual goals. We believe our 
     proposal, as summarized below, can be signed by the 
     President and will establish a fairer Superfund liability 
     regime, including the allocation of liability and costs.
       Our proposal significantly changes current law to create a 
     fair share allocation system for parties who are not exempt 
     from liability. This proposal essentially eliminates third 
     party contribution lawsuits and was unanimously supported by 
     the Commerce Committee and overwhelming supported by the 
     Public Works and Transportation Committee in the 103rd 
     Congress. However, in a genuine effort to find common ground, 
     our proposal addresses many of your stated concerns and also 
     contains the following additional liability relief 
       Our proposal would exempt small businesses with 25 or fewer 
     employees and earning less than $2 million in annual gross 
     revenues that are liable under Superfund as generators or 
     transporters of hazardous substances from liability for 
     activities prior to the date the legislation is enacted. 
     Consistent with Mr. Oxley's stated desired to ``get the 
     little guys, the small businesses whose margins are razor-
     thin to begin with, out of the system,'' this proposal 
     recognizes the practical reality that these very small 
     companies typically do not have the financial means to 
     contribute meaningfully to the costs of a cleanup.
       Our proposal would exempt from liability all businesses 
     with fewer than 100 employees, residential homeowners, and 
     small non-profit organizations that are liable under 
     Superfund as generators and transporters of municipal solid 
     waste. This provision would exempt thousands of parties from 
     liability, including the Girl Scouts and the people who 
     disposed of things like ``pizza boxes''--two types of 
     generators frequently cited by Mr. Oxley as examples of those 
     who should be relieved of Superfund liability.
       In addition to businesses with fewer than 100 employees, 
     residential homeowners and small non-profit organizations, 
     our proposal also would exempt all other generators and 
     transporters of municipal solid waste from Superfund 
     liability at NPL sites for activities prior to the date of 
     enactment. For activities after the date of enactment, the 
     proposal limits liability at 10% of the total response costs 
     at the site, so long as the generators and transporters 
     participate in a qualified household waste collection 
       Our proposal would cap the liability of municipal owners 
     and operators of landfills that accepted predominantly 
     municipal waste.
       Our proposal would double the ``de micromis'' exemption 
     contained in H.R. 228 to exempt parties that, as generators 
     or transporters, contributed less than 110 gallons of liquid 
     materials containing hazardous substances or 200 pounds of 
     solid materials containing hazardous substances.
       Our proposal provides for expedited de minimis settlements 
     for parties at National Priorities List sites who contributed 
     a small volume of waste, presumed to be 1% or less of the 
     total waste at the site, unless EPA determines that site 
     specific conditions indicate that another greater or lesser 
     amount constitutes a small volume.
       Altogether, the Administration estimates that our proposal 
     would provide relief from Superfund liability and a shield 
     from contribution litigation for more than 40,000 parties. 
     For the parties who remain liable under Superfund under our 
     proposal, the process would be greatly streamlined, 
     transaction costs would be reduced, and settlements would be 
     expedited. Our proposal improves fairness and takes numerous 
     smaller parties out of the liability net, but still preserves 
     fundamental principles of corporate responsibility, which 
     require as a general rule that companies responsible for 
     hazardous substance contamination pay their fair share of the 
     cleanup costs. This concept was endorsed by a wide range of 
     industry and other stakeholders in the compromise bill in the 
     103rd Congress.
       The principal difference we have identified between our 
     proposals and yours is that your broader liability exemptions 
     (and consequent allowance of fair share funding) will exempt 
     those generators and transporters of significant amounts of 
     hazardous substances that in most cases are driving up the 
     cost of the remedy and the health hazards at Superfund sites, 
     as well as the owners (in your second and third options) who 
     profited from the disposal of hazardous substances. We 
     believe the additional parties you are proposing to exempt 
     from liability generally are able and should be willing to 
     pay their fair share of response costs in order to clean up 
     the contamination for which they are responsible.
       We were informed by Commerce Committee Majority staff that 
     Mr. Bliley's February 21 proposal had rejected site carve-
     outs in favor of retaining liability for the ``true 
     polluters,'' i.e., the owners and operators. Nevertheless, 
     your latest counterproposal contains two options for site 
     carve-outs which would exempt owners and operators. The 
     Administration has informed us that of the approximately 250 
     codisposal sites, about seventy percent contain predominantly 
     hazardous waste that is contributing significantly to the 
     type of remedy selected or cost of the response action, and 
     that was disposed of by generators or transporters. We 
     believe that neither the Fund, which needs to be preserved 
     for cleaning up abandoned sites, nor the citizen 
     taxpayer, who contributes to the $250 million General 
     Treasury portion of the Superfund budget and who will pay 
     substantially more if the Fund cannot cover the cost of 
     cleanup, should assume the responsibility of those who 
     created the mess.
       It is no answer in our view to say that the polluters pay 
     because the Superfund into which they deposit taxes would 
     bear the costs of your proposals. Superfund taxes are imposed 
     on corporate taxpayers regardless of whether they are 
     responsible for contamination at any site, and the greatest 
     source of Superfund revenues, the Environmental Income Tax, 
     is imposed regardless of the type

[[Page H6773]]

     of business in which the corporation is engaged. Revenues 
     from these taxes should be used to support the cleanup 
     program and to fund cleanup of sites where insolvent, 
     defunct, or recalcitrant parties are responsible for the 
       Quite apart from these fundamental policy considerations, 
     we are troubled by recent developments in the Appropriations 
     and Rules Committees relating to the Superfund appropriation. 
     At our meeting on April 25, you sought to persuade us that 
     the Appropriations and Budget Committees had signed off on, 
     and would make available, hundreds of millions of new dollars 
     for Superfund cleanups that would fund your liability 
     proposals. Apart from our philosophical differences over 
     whether the Fund should be used to let polluters off the 
     hook, we expressed our skepticism that such funds could in 
     fact be appropriated without offsetting reductions in other 
     important environmental programs and priorities. Although it 
     appeared at first that the Appropriations Committee last week 
     would indeed make an additional $861 million available 
     subject to enactment of a reauthorization bill, it quickly 
     became clear that such a provision ran afoul of the Budget 
     Act, would exceed the VA-HUD-Independent Agencies 
     Subcommittee's allocation, and would be subject to a fatal 
     point of order. The Rules Committee's self-confessed remedy 
     for this Budget Act violation has been to make the $861 
     million subject instead to passage of a future appropriation. 
     In other words, the additional money is either completely 
     illusory and provides no independent justification for 
     support of your liability proposals--or, the money may be 
     appropriated at some indeterminate future time if the 
     Appropriations Committee can figure out how to blow the top 
     off the Subcommittee's allocation. This does not inspire 
     great confidence.
       For all these reasons, we cannot agree to proceed on the 
     basis of any of the three options outlined in your letter. We 
     are, however, willing to consider compromises that work 
     within a basic framework consistent with the ``polluter 
     pays'' principle. With productive and creative attention to 
     these issues, perhaps a bipartisan compromise on liability 
     remains possible. In this context, we would be willing to 
     discuss additional funding, pursuant to the Administrator's 
     discretionary mixed funding authority, for the purpose of 
     facilitating comprehensive settlements at codisposal 
     facilities that accepted predominantly municipal waste.
       Your April 30 letter also presents a number of proposals on 
     other issues that merit our response. Our review of your 
     remedy selection proposals persuades us that they would 
     result in a significant and unacceptable rollback of human 
     health and environmental protection. During Subcommittee 
     hearings on H.R. 2500, Administrator Browner testified that 
     the bill inadequately protects human health and the 
     environment and lacks sufficient emphasis on reliable, long-
     term protection at a reasonable cost. We support your efforts 
     to make cleanup decisions based upon reasonably anticipated 
     future use of property and to eliminate ``relevant and 
     appropriate'' (as opposed to legally applicable) state 
     standards. But any new remedy selection provisions must in 
     our view meet the same test the industrial community and 
     other key stakeholders used to favorably judge H.R. 228--the 
     provisions must consider costs and risks ``realistically, 
     fairly, and pragmatically.''
       In particular, we believe that legally applicable state 
     standards should apply to cleanups as they do in current law. 
     Subjecting such standards to an incremental cost-benefit test 
     weakens current law at the expense of human health and the 
     environment. Moreover, preserving legally applicable state 
     standards in remedy selection is an issue of vital importance 
     to the overwhelming majority of states. We also believe, 
     based upon staff discussions, that your groundwater proposals 
     fail to provide adequate protection even for aquifers that 
     may provide drinking water supplies, in part because your 
     proposals maintain the prerequisite for establishing a 
     ``substantial probability'' that groundwater may be used for 
     drinking water in the future. Further, the proposals do not 
     contain the necessary emphasis on restoration of precious 
     groundwater resources that are of increasing importance to 
     our communities' economic development. And we are finding it 
     increasingly difficult to reconcile your Leadership's 
     professed support for returning power to the states in some 
     areas--for example, Medicaid and welfare reform--with the 
     apparent willingness in so many other areas to override state 
     laws when they are inconvenient for the business community.
       Many of your proposals threaten to mire the cleanup process 
     in litigation and delay. Under a process even more cumbersome 
     than initially introduced in H.R. 2500, your proposal allows 
     for reopening records of decision and eliminating the current 
     law's bar on preenforcement review of remedies. This promises 
     more delay and litigation, as past decisions are reconsidered 
     and judges are asked to second-guess cleanup choices that 
     were previously made by EPA or states. We fail to understand 
     how these provisions can be reconciled with the overarching 
     concern about reducing transaction costs that you have 
     expressed in our liability discussions. Under these 
     provisions of your proposal, bulldozers will be idled, health 
     risks will remain unaddressed, and affected communities will 
     have to wait for cleanup, while lawyers and consultants clean 
     up with hundreds of new fee-generating opportunities.
       While we could support limiting the preference for 
     treatment in current law to the most contaminated and highly 
     mobile toxic waste (hot spots), we cannot support a complete 
     elimination of the preference for treatment. Rejection of 
     this fundamental tenet of the President's Superfund reform 
     proposal would create more brownfield sites that, for all 
     practical purposes, could never be suitable for redevelopment 
     or other productive future use.
       Changing long-standing concepts, such as the definition of 
     environment and minimum health standards (even as modified in 
     your latest proposal), creates ambiguous and ill-defined 
     terms and certainly will result in a litigation bonanza. 
     These changes are, in our view, ill-advised and unnecessary.
       While we are willing to consider adding a Governors' 
     concurrence provision for new additions to the NPL, we cannot 
     support the arbitrary constraints, or ``caps,'' contained in 
     your proposals. Both the General Accounting Office and the 
     Association of State and Territorial Solid Waste Management 
     Officials have concluded that many states do not have the 
     funding to address sites within their boundaries that 
     otherwise would be placed on the NPL.
       We also are highly concerned about your proposals for 
     natural resource damages, a set of issues that are as 
     important to us as liability and remedy. In our view, your 
     proposals would dramatically limit the ability of federal, 
     state, and tribal natural resource trustees to restore 
     natural resources injured by releases of hazardous substances 
     and allow losses to remain uncompensated. As you proposed, we 
     are pleased to have our staff participate in stakeholder 
     discussions on natural resource damages which commenced this 
       In summary, H.R. 2500--and the proposals you have made 
     based on it--seeks to create a regime that abandons the 
     ``polluter pays'' principle, rewards egregious and 
     recalcitrant behavior, delays cleanups, drastically minimizes 
     health and environmental standards, jeopardizes restoration 
     of natural resources, encourages litigation (even to the 
     extent of opening up previously settled decisions governing 
     cleanups), and leaves states responsible for enormous 
     financial obligations for cleanup. We cannot support such an 
       If we are to achieve our shared goal of Superfund reform 
     this year, we urge you to consider an approach that addresses 
     concerns about further liability relief within the bounds of 
     genuinely available fiscal resources and at the same time 
     adheres to the basic ``polluter pays'' framework that always 
     has been central to Superfund.
       If you conclude that a comprehensive Superfund reform bill 
     is not achievable this year, perhaps we can achieve some 
     success yet. With a little futher work, we feel that we can 
     reach agreement on issues relating to federal facilities, 
     clarification of lender liability, grants to local government 
     to assist in redeveloping brownfields, and providing 
     liability relief to bona fide prospective purchasers of 
       The Commerce Committee's recent achievement of a 
     comprehensive safe drinking water reauthorization bill makes 
     clear that we can achieve consensus, even on highly 
     contentious issues surrounding protection of human health and 
     the environment. We look forward to continuing to work with 
     you in that spirit.
     John D. Dingell,
       Ranking Member, Committee on Commerce.
     Thomas J. Manton,
       Ranking Member, Subcommittee on Commerce, Trade, and 
     Hazardous Materials.
     James L. Oberstar,
       Ranking Member, Committee on Transportation and 
     Robert A. Borski,
       Ranking Member, Subcommittee on Water Resources and 

                                                U.S. Environmental

                                            Protection Agency,

                                     Washington DC, June 24, 1996.
     Hon. Thomas J. Bliley,
     Chairman, Committee on Commerce,
     Washington, DC.
       Dear Mr. Chairman: Pursuant to the commitment EPA Assistant 
     Administrator Elliott Laws made in May, I am writing in 
     response to your proposal on liability issues, presented to 
     us in your past letter.
       I recognize that much hard work has been devoted to 
     achieving our shared goal of Superfund reform in this 
     Congress. We believe that the past several months of 
     legislative negotiations have been productive in identifying 
     issues where we may achieve a common understanding and 
     clarifying issues where we still remain divided on 
     substantive policy differences.
       It is my firm believe that we can achieve responsible 
     Superfund reform only through a genuine commitment to a 
     bipartisan legislative process by you and the House 
     leadership. I had hoped our negotiations would have helped 
     revive the bipartisan dialogue that existed in the House 
     Commerce and House Transportation Committees during the 
     Superfund legislative process in the 103rd Congress.

[[Page H6774]]

       At the start of the 104th Congress, we expected to build on 
     the consensus developed in the bipartisan bill passed 44-0 by 
     the House Commerce Committee and by near unanimous voice vote 
     by the House Transportation Committee in the prior year. The 
     bill was reintroduced as H.R. 228 with the hope that we could 
     begin a bipartisan dialogue and finish our earlier work in 
     the first session of this Congress.
       We were disappointed when Superfund reform legislation was 
     introduced that departed significantly from the bipartisan 
     bill supported by a broad coalition of industry, small 
     business, state and local governments, community groups, and 
     environmental organizations that was crafted in the preceding 
     Congress. H.R. 2500 as introduced did not reflect this 
     consensus nor the Superfund reform principles supported by 
     the Administration. My testimony on H.R. 2500 reflected the 
     Administration's strong opposition to provisions that would 
     compromise the ``polluter pays'' principle; increase 
     litigation and delay cleanups; compromise cleanup standards 
     at the expense of human health and environmental protection; 
     and devastate the natural resource damage (NRD) programs 
     administered by federal, state, and tribal natural resource 
       Unfortunately, the lack of a genuine process of bipartisan 
     negotiation in which to resolve our differences resulted in a 
     highly divisive Commerce subcommittee markup, and a 
     significant delay in progress toward responsible Superfund 
       Liability. In congressional testimony before both the House 
     Commerce and House Transportation Committees in 1995, I urged 
     that we begin a bipartisan process to pass responsible 
     Superfund reform legislation. Regrettably, it was not until 
     March of 1996 that you initiated bipartisan negotiations on 
     H.R. 2500. You asked us to be open to compromise on all 
     issues, and to base our liability and allocation discussions 
     on a new liability repeal proposal that had not been the 
     subject of a subcommittee hearing or markup. In an effort to 
     further address your stated concerns that the current 
     Superfund liability system generated too much litigation that 
     resulted in large transaction costs, we improved upon the 
     compromise liability proposal that we had all developed in 
     the 103rd Congress, and offered a new liability proposal that 
     would increase fairness and reduce transaction costs.
       The Administration liability proposal offered on April 2, 
     1996, moved significantly beyond the compromise we had 
     developed in the prior Congress. We eliminated parties from 
     the system--such as small businesses--whose actual 
     responsibility for contamination at a site, or whose limited 
     ability to pay cleanup costs, was disproportional to the 
     litigation generated and transaction costs associated with 
     bringing them into the liability scheme. In these cases, the 
     polluter pays principle is best served by eliminating the 
     inefficiency associated with retaining these parties in the 
     liability scheme, while preserving incentives for responsible 
     behavior. We also sought to reduce transaction costs and 
     promote certainty for other parties by capping or eliminating 
     liability for parties whose liability is based on disposal of 
     municipal solid waste (MSW).
       Taken together, we estimate that the relief provided by 
     these proposals would remove more than 40,000 parties from 
     Superfund liability and provide transaction cost relief for 
     many more parties that otherwise could be entangled in 
     Superfund litigation. For the parties who remain in the 
     system, the process would be simplified and settlements would 
     be expedited. Our proposals would still preserve the 
     polluter pays principle and maintain the principle of 
     corporate responsibility that those companies responsible 
     for hazardous waste contamination pay their fair share of 
     the cleanup costs.
       When we met in April, Chairman Bliley indicated that we 
     could expect a counteroffer that would show ``substantial 
     movement toward'' our position. Notwithstanding this 
     suggestion, your letter of April 30 effectively rejected our 
     proposal with no discussion as to the policy reasons for the 
     rejection. As Assistant Administrator Elliott Laws outlined 
     in his letter of May 2, the three liability options you 
     proposed were essentially variations on prior liability 
     repeal proposals made by the three Chairmen over the course 
     of the past year. Your decision not to address our proposal 
     of April 2, other than one small addition to your liability 
     options, failed to provide the impetus for moving the 
     discussions forward.
       I have given careful and serious consideration to each of 
     these options, evaluating each according to three criteria: 
     fairness; efficiency, and the polluter pays principle in 
     current law and our proposed administrative and legislative 
     reforms. Under these criteria, I believe that all three of 
     your options compare unfavorably to the Administration's 
     liability proposal.
       Option 1 consists primarily of a repeal of liability for 
     generators and transporters of hazardous substances. This 
     proposal replaced the fifty percent ``retroactive liability 
     discount'' adopted at the Commerce subcommittee markup. This 
     approach would exempt many large hazardous waste contributors 
     who can afford to pay for cleanup, while retaining liability 
     for owners and operators of those same sites. This disparate 
     treatment of parties is unjustified, would significantly 
     increase the transaction costs associated with determining 
     the time of disposal; and would violate the polluter pays 
     principle. By repealing liability for so many parties, this 
     proposal would require a massive transfer of cleanup 
     responsibility from private parties to the federal 
     government, resulting in lost efficiencies and cleanup delays 
     as sites are transferred to EPA.
       Option 2 proposes a ``site carve-out'' that would exempt 
     from Superfund liability all parties at certain co-disposal 
     and recycling sites which together account for approximately 
     twenty-five percent of the hazardous waste sites on the 
     National Priorities List. There appears to be no principled 
     basis or coherent policy rationale for eliminating these 
     sites from the liability scheme while retaining others. Any 
     purported reduction in transaction costs will be more than 
     overwhelmed by other budgetary and social costs of the 
     proposal, including the transaction and inefficiency costs of 
     a massive transfer of sites into a government-conducted 
     cleanup program under Superfund.
       In addition, an analysis of the sites and parties who would 
     be exempted from liability under this scheme has made clear 
     that this proposal would exempt very contaminated sites, and 
     would exempt from liability many large industrial generators 
     of hazardous waste who should be called upon to pay for the 
     cleanup before resorting to Federal Trust Fund dollars. Our 
     review of these sites has also found that the recycling sites 
     that would be carved out under your proposal include a number 
     of sites at which serious environmental contamination has 
     resulted from egregiously irresponsible conduct.
       Option 3 is essentially similar to Option 2, except that it 
     would append a portion of our liability counterproposal on 
     top of the broad site carve-out in Option 2. While I 
     acknowledge the attempt to accommodate our counterproposal in 
     some small manner, combining Option 2 with our proposal fails 
     to alter in any way the flaws we have identified in Option 2.
       I also remain concerned by the lack of any assurance that 
     adequate funding will be available for these proposals 
     without rolling back remedy standards, compromising the pace 
     of cleanup, or cutting funding for other environmental 
     programs that are essential to protecting public health and 
     the environment. Our analysis suggests that the cost of 
     Option 1, for example, will far exceed the increases in 
     funding proposed in your letter. Should any additional funds 
     over and above the current Superfund appropriation be 
     actually appropriated for the Superfund program, they should 
     not be spent on proposals that delay cleanup, reduce 
     protectiveness or violate the polluter pays principle.
       Other Issues. You also placed other, non-liability issues 
     on the table in your letter. Unfortunately, many of the 
     proposals are so general in nature that it is difficult to 
     respond in a meaningful manner. However, the proposals appear 
     to remain far short of meeting our fundamental principles 
     that Superfund cleanups remain protective of public health 
     and the environment and that the current pace of cleanup be 
     maintained or increased.
       Your proposals still appear to place too much emphasis on 
     cost as opposed to public health and environmental protection 
     in the balancing test used for selecting cleanup remedies. 
     There remains far too many qualifiers on when, if ever, 
     groundwater would be cleaned up as opposed to selecting 
     exposure control remedies. There is no requirement for 
     treatment of the most highly toxic and mobile hazardous waste 
     at Superfund sites. Hundreds of RODs would still be reopened 
     under your proposals, potentially costing years of delay 
     at Superfund sites. The arbitrary cap on listing NPL sites 
     will undoubtedly leave hundreds of hazardous waste sites 
     unaddressed by states that simply do not have the 
     resources to clean them up.
       In addition, your proposals to limit the ability of 
     Federal, state and tribal natural resource trustees to 
     restore damaged natural resources is unacceptable public and 
     environmental policy.
       Next Steps. I feel I must also respond to the letter sent 
     by Chairmen Bliley and Oxley dated June 17, 1996. I am deeply 
     disappointed that the Commerce Committee Chairs would 
     question my commitment to enacting Superfund reform 
     legislation. EPA has worked for more than three and one half 
     years to secure a Superfund reform bill, while at the same 
     time implementing significant and successful administrative 
     reforms. No one has worked harder than this Administration to 
     make Superfund faster, fairer, and more efficient. In my 
     congressional testimony and private discussions with 
     congressional committee chairs and ranking members, I have 
     steadfastly urged that a bipartisan legislative process be 
     developed so that we can build the consensus necessary to 
     secure passage of a responsible Superfund reform bill. I 
     remain committed to that goal. If you genuinely share that 
     goal, I challenge you to offer responsible Superfund reform 
     proposals that protect public health and the environment and 
     that do not violate the polluter pays principle. Working 
     together, we can enact Superfund reform legislation in this 
                                                 Carol M. Browner.

  Mr. QUILLEN. Mr. Speaker, I yield such time as he may consume to the 
gentleman from New York [Mr. Solomon], the distinguished chairman of 
the House Committee on Rules.
  Mr. SOLOMON. Mr. Speaker, I thank the chairman emeritus and would ask 
the gentleman from Michigan, John

[[Page H6775]]

Dingell, if he would stand around just for a minute.
  ``This is a scam, this is a sham.'' Now, all of the Democrats voted 
for this. ``This is a scam, this is a sham,'' and I would just say to 
my good friend, and he is a very good friend and one of the most 
respected Members of the body, nobody came to complain. We work in the 
Committee on Rules 18 hours a day. We were up there the other evening 
putting this rule out, finally, and nobody complained. As a matter of 
fact, I think the rule, this open rule, incidentally, passed by a 
unanimous vote.
  I would just say to my good friend, too, he ought to be careful about 
how he refers to Members because you could have your words taken down. 
I would never do that to one of my best friends, but we should be 
accurate. The gentleman, I happen to know, has served under former 
Democrat chairmen by the name of Moakley and Pepper and Boland and 
Delaney and Madden and Colmer and Howard Smith of Virginia, and if you 
want to talk about closed rules, you ought to see them. We have turned 
that around where now we have mostly open rules, thank goodness.
  Mr. Speaker, let me just talk about this thing that seems to be 
bothering some people. We have done one thing up in the Committee on 
Rules at the request, I think, of the Congress; it was not the request 
of any one particular person. But we changed one word. We did not 
change one word, we simply added a word, and that word was 
``appropriations.'' We say ``future appropriation legislation,'' 
instead of ``future legislation.'' We simply add the word 
  Why did we do that? We do it because the Congressional Budget Office 
requires us to do it. We do it because the Committee on the Budget 
requires it of us. But let me tell you why we really did it. Because 
Jerry Solomon, this Member of Congress, requires it of us, because we 
are not going to do anything that is going to get us off that glidepath 
to a balanced budget.
  The gentleman from Ohio, John Kasich, the chairman of the Committee 
on the Budget, is sitting in the back of the room. He has got us on 
that glidepath for the second consecutive year, and we are going to 
continue for the next 5 years and we are not going to veer off it, no 
matter what. The most serious problem facing this Government today is 
these unconscionable deficits that are turning this Nation into a 
debtor nation, no better than a third-world debtor nation, and the 
American people have had it and we have had it.
  Let me get back on to the bill itself, because I want everybody to 
come over here and I want Members to vote for this rule, then I want 
Members to vote for the bill. The major part of this bill is the 
funding of the Department of Veterans Affairs, and it is funded at a 
level that is going to take care of the veterans of this Nation. Why is 
that necessary? Because we have a contract with them. This is not some 
kind of welfare program or social program we are dealing with in 
funding the hospital medical care delivery system under the Veterans' 
Administration, the Department of Veterans Affairs now. In other words, 
that is an earned benefit and that is what we are doing here today. As 
a matter of fact, we are going to have an amendment by a good Democrat, 
the gentleman from Mississippi, Sonny Montgomery, and a good 
Republican, the gentleman from New York, Jerry Solomon, and the 
gentleman from Arizona, Bob Stump, and we are going to increase that a 
little bit.
  We are going to take less than one-half of 1 percent out of all these 
other bureaus and agencies and offices that are funded under this 
complex little bill here, and we are going to take that $50 billion 
plus $15 million and we are going to add it into the Veterans' 
Administration hospital care delivery system because that is what it is 
going to take to keep that solvent and keep it going so that we do not 
loose ground.
  So that is really what this entire debate is all about today. Let us 
not quibble over one word. We are doing it because we cannot afford to 
violate the Budget Act and then have CBO and all of these other people 
come down on us. We are going to change that one word, but then we are 
going to pass this, one of the most important appropriation bills that 
we have coming before this Congress this year.

                              {time}  1415

  Mr. FROST. Mr. Speaker, I yield 30 seconds to the distinguished 
gentleman from Michigan [Mr. Dingell].
  Mr. DINGELL. Mr. Speaker, I want to make it clear that no man holds 
the distinguished chairman of the Committee on Rules in greater esteem 
than do I or has greater affection for him, but he has just admitted, 
just admitted that there is no money in that $861 million. It is 
illusion. It is blue smoke and mirrors.
  I want to compliment the gentleman because never before have I seen 
this so adroitly done, even in the Committee on Rules, where he reigns 
supreme and issues closed rules and handles the business of this House 
up there behind closed doors.
  Mr. FROST. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume, 
and in partial response to my friend, the chairman of the committee, I 
would like to insert some material in the Record.
  Mr. Speaker, at the beginning of this Congress the Republican 
majority claimed that the House was going to consider bills under an 
open process.
  I would like to point out that 60 percent of the legislation this 
session has been considered under a restrictive process.
  Mr. Speaker, additional information for the Record follows:

                                                                          Process used for floor   Amendments in
            Bill No.                    Title           Resolution No.         consideration           order    
H.R. 1*........................  Compliance........  H. Res. 6            Closed................           None.
H. Res. 6......................  Opening Day Rules   H. Res. 5            Closed................           None.
H.R. 5*........................  Unfunded Mandates.  H. Res. 38           Restrictive...........            N/A.
H.J. Res. 2*...................  Balanced Budget...  H. Res. 44           Restrictive...........         2R; 4D.
H. Res. 43.....................  Committee Hearings  H. Res. 43 (OJ)      Restrictive...........            N/A.
H.R. 101.......................  To transfer a       H. Res. 51           Open..................            N/A.
                                  parcel of land to                                                             
                                  the Taos Pueblo                                                               
                                  Indians of New                                                                
H.R. 400.......................  To provide for the  H. Res. 52           Open..................            N/A.
                                  exchange of lands                                                             
                                  within Gates of                                                               
                                  the Arctic                                                                    
                                  National Park                                                                 
H.R. 440.......................  To provide for the  H. Res. 53           Open..................            N/A.
                                  conveyance of                                                                 
                                  lands to certain                                                              
                                  individuals in                                                                
                                  Butte County,                                                                 
H.R. 2*........................  Line Item Veto....  H. Res. 55           Open..................            N/A.
H.R. 665*......................  Victim Restitution  H. Res. 61           Open..................            N/A.
                                  Act of 1995.                                                                  
H.R. 666*......................  Exclusionary Rule   H. Res. 63           Open..................            N/A.
                                  Reform Act of                                                                 
H.R. 667*......................  Violent Criminal    H. Res. 63           Restrictive...........            N/A.
                                  Incarceration Act                                                             
                                  of 1995.                                                                      
H.R. 668*......................  The Criminal Alien  H. Res. 69           Open..................            N/A.
                                  Improvement Act.                                                              
H.R. 728*......................  Local Government    H. Res. 79           Restrictive...........            N/A.
                                  Law Enforcement                                                               
                                  Block Grants.                                                                 
H.R. 7*........................  National Security   H. Res. 83           Restrictive...........            N/A.
H.R. 729*......................  Death Penalty/      N/A                  Restrictive...........            N/A.
S. 2...........................  Senate Compliance.  N/A                  Closed................           None.
H.R. 831.......................  To Permanently      H. Res. 88           Restrictive...........             1D.
                                  Extend the Health                                                             
                                  Deduction for the                                                             
H.R. 830*......................  The Paperwork       H. Res. 91           Open..................            N/A.
                                  Reduction Act.                                                                
H.R. 889.......................  Emergency           H. Res. 92           Restrictive...........             1D.
                                  Certain Budget                                                                
H.R. 450*......................  Regulatory          H. Res. 93           Restrictive...........            N/A.
H.R. 1022*.....................  Risk Assessment...  H. Res. 96           Restrictive...........            N/A.
H.R. 926*......................  Regulatory          H. Res. 100          Open..................            N/A.
H.R. 925*......................  Private Property    H. Res. 101          Restrictive...........             1D.
                                  Protection Act.                                                               
H.R. 1058*.....................  Securities          H. Res. 105          Restrictive...........             1D.
                                  Litigation Reform                                                             
H.R. 988*......................  The Attorney        H. Res. 104          Restrictive...........            N/A.
                                  Act of 1995.                                                                  
H.R. 956*......................  Product Liability   H. Res. 109          Restrictive...........         8D; 7R.
                                  and Legal Reform                                                              
H.R. 1158......................  Making Emergency    H. Res. 115          Restrictive...........            N/A.
                                  and Rescissions.                                                              

[[Page H6776]]

H.J. Res. 73*..................  Term Limits.......  H. Res. 116          Restrictive...........          1D; 3R
H.R. 4*........................  Welfare Reform....  H. Res. 119          Restrictive...........        5D; 26R.
H.R. 1271*.....................  Family Privacy Act  H. Res. 125          Open..................            N/A.
H.R. 660*......................  Housing for Older   H. Res. 126          Open..................            N/A.
                                  Persons Act.                                                                  
H.R. 1215*.....................  The Contract With   H. Res. 129          Restrictive...........             1D.
                                  America Tax                                                                   
                                  Relief Act of                                                                 
H.R. 483.......................  Medicare Select     H. Res. 130          Restrictive...........             1D.
H.R. 655.......................  Hydrogen Future     H. Res. 136          Open..................            N/A.
H.R. 1361......................  Coast Guard         H. Res. 139          Open..................            N/A.
H.R. 961.......................  Clean Water Act...  H. Res. 140          Open..................            N/A.
H.R. 535.......................  Corning National    H. Res. 144          Open..................            N/A.
                                  Fish Hatchery                                                                 
                                  Conveyance Act.                                                               
H.R. 584.......................  Conveyance of the   H. Res. 145          Open..................            N/A.
                                  Fairport National                                                             
                                  Fish Hatchery to                                                              
                                  the State of Iowa.                                                            
H.R. 614.......................  Conveyance of the   H. Res. 146          Open..................            N/A.
                                  New London                                                                    
                                  National Fish                                                                 
H. Con. Res. 67................  Budget Resolution.  H. Res. 149          Restrictive...........         3D; 1R.
H.R. 1561......................  American Overseas   H. Res. 155          Restrictive...........            N/A.
                                  Interests Act of                                                              
H.R. 1530......................  National Defense    H. Res. 164          Restrictive...........     36R; 18D; 2
                                  Authorization                                                      Bipartisan.
                                  Act; FY 1996.                                                                 
H.R. 1817......................  Military            H. Res. 167          Open..................            N/A.
                                  FY 1996.                                                                      
H.R. 1854......................  Legislative Branch  H. Res. 169          Restrictive...........       5R; 4D; 2
                                  Appropriations.                                                    Bipartisan.
H.R. 1868......................  Foreign Operations  H. Res. 170          Open..................            N/A.
H.R. 1905......................  Energy & Water      H. Res. 171          Open..................            N/A.
H.J. Res. 79...................  Constitutional      H. Res. 173          Closed................            N/A.
                                  Amendment to                                                                  
                                  Permit Congress                                                               
                                  and States to                                                                 
                                  Prohibit the                                                                  
                                  Desecration of                                                                
                                  the American Flag.                                                            
H.R. 1944......................  Recissions Bill...  H. Res. 175          Restrictive...........            N/A.
H.R. 1868 (2nd rule)...........  Foreign Operations  H. Res. 177          Restrictive...........            N/A.
H.R. 1977 *Rule Defeated*......  Interior            H. Res. 185          Open..................            N/A.
H.R. 1977......................  Interior            H. Res. 187          Open..................            N/A.
H.R. 1976......................  Agriculture         H. Res. 188          Open..................            N/A.
H.R. 1977 (3rd rule)...........  Interior            H. Res. 189          Restrictive...........            N/A.
H.R. 2020......................  Treasury Postal     H. Res. 190          Open..................            N/A.
H.J. Res. 96...................  Disapproving MFN    H. Res. 193          Restrictive...........            N/A.
                                  for China.                                                                    
H.R. 2002......................  Transportation      H. Res. 194          Open..................            N/A.
H.R. 70........................  Exports of Alaskan  H. Res. 197          Open..................            N/A.
                                  North Slope Oil.                                                              
H.R. 2076......................  Commerce, Justice   H. Res. 198          Open..................            N/A.
H.R. 2099......................  VA/HUD              H. Res. 201          Open..................            N/A.
S. 21..........................  Termination of      H. Res. 204          Restrictive...........             1D.
                                  U.S. Arms Embargo                                                             
                                  on Bosnia.                                                                    
H.R. 2126......................  Defense             H. Res. 205          Open..................            N/A.
H.R. 1555......................  Communications Act  H. Res. 207          Restrictive...........     2R/3D/3 Bi-
                                  of 1995.                                                             partisan.
H.R. 2127......................  Labor/HHS           H. Res. 208          Open..................            N/A.
H.R. 1594......................  Economically        H. Res. 215          Open..................            N/A.
H.R. 1655......................  Intelligence        H. Res. 216          Restrictive...........            N/A.
H.R. 1162......................  Deficit Reduction   H. Res. 218          Open..................            N/A.
                                  Lock Box.                                                                     
H.R. 1670......................  Federal             H. Res. 219          Open..................            N/A.
                                  Reform Act of                                                                 
H.R. 1617......................  To Consolidate and  H. Res. 222          Open..................            N/A.
                                  Reform Workforce                                                              
                                  Development and                                                               
                                  Literacy Programs                                                             
                                  Act (CAREERS).                                                                
H.R. 2274......................  National Highway    H. Res. 224          Open..................            N/A.
                                  Designation Act                                                               
                                  of 1995.                                                                      
H.R. 927.......................  Cuban Liberty and   H. Res. 225          Restrictive...........          2R/2D.
                                  Solidarity Act of                                                             
H.R. 743.......................  The Teamwork for    H. Res. 226          Open..................            N/A.
                                  Employees and                                                                 
                                  Managers Act of                                                               
H.R. 1170......................  3-Judge Court for   H. Res. 227          Open..................            N/A.
H.R. 1601......................  International       H. Res. 228          Open..................            N/A.
                                  Space Station                                                                 
                                  Authorization Act                                                             
                                  of 1995.                                                                      
H.J. Res. 108..................  Making Continuing   H. Res. 230          Closed................  ..............
                                  for FY 1996.                                                                  
H.R. 2405......................  Omnibus Civilian    H. Res. 234          Open..................            N/A.
                                  Authorization Act                                                             
                                  of 1995.                                                                      
H.R. 2259......................  To Disapprove       H. Res. 237          Restrictive...........             1D.
H.R. 2425......................  Medicare            H. Res. 238          Restrictive...........             1D.
                                  Preservation Act.                                                             
H.R. 2492......................  Legislative Branch  H. Res. 239          Restrictive...........            N/A.
H.R. 2491......................  7 Year Balanced     H. Res. 245          Restrictive...........             1D.
H. Con. Res. 109...............   Budget                                                                        
                                  Social Security                                                               
                                  Earnings Test                                                                 
H.R. 1833......................  Partial Birth       H. Res. 251          Closed................            N/A.
                                  Abortion Ban Act                                                              
                                  of 1995.                                                                      
H.R. 2546......................  D.C.                H. Res. 252          Restrictive...........            N/A.
                                  Appropriations FY                                                             
H.J. Res. 115..................  Further Continuing  H. Res. 257          Closed................            N/A.
                                  for FY 1996.                                                                  
H.R. 2586......................  Temporary Increase  H. Res. 258          Restrictive...........             5R.
                                  in the Statutory                                                              
                                  Debt Limit.                                                                   
H.R. 2539......................  ICC Termination...  H. Res. 259          Open..................  ..............
H.J. Res. 115..................  Further Continuing  H. Res. 261          Closed................            N/A.
                                  for FY 1996.                                                                  
H.R. 2586......................  Temporary Increase  H. Res. 262          Closed................            N/A.
                                  in the Statutory                                                              
                                  Limit on the                                                                  
                                  Public Debt.                                                                  
H. Res. 250....................  House Gift Rule     H. Res. 268          Closed................             2R.
H.R. 2564......................  Lobbying            H. Res. 269          Open..................            N/A.
                                  Disclosure Act of                                                             
H.R. 2606......................  Prohibition on      H. Res. 273          Restrictive...........            N/A.
                                  Funds for Bosnia                                                              
H.R. 1788......................  Amtrak Reform and   H. Res. 289          Open..................            N/A.
                                  Privatization Act                                                             
                                  of 1995.                                                                      
H.R. 1350......................  Maritime Security   H. Res. 287          Open..................            N/A.
                                  Act of 1995.                                                                  
H.R. 2621......................  To Protect Federal  H. Res. 293          Closed................            N/A.
                                  Trust Funds.                                                                  
H.R. 1745......................  Utah Public Lands   H. Res. 303          Open..................            N/A.
                                  Management Act of                                                             
H. Res. 304....................  Providing for       N/A                  Closed................         1D; 2R.
                                  Debate and                                                                    
                                  Consideration of                                                              
                                  Three Measures                                                                
                                  Relating to U.S.                                                              
                                  Troop Deployments                                                             
                                  in Bosnia.                                                                    
H. Res. 309....................  Revised Budget      H. Res. 309          Closed................            N/A.
H.R. 558.......................  Texas Low-Level     H. Res. 313          Open..................            N/A.
                                  Radioactive Waste                                                             
                                  Disposal Compact                                                              
                                  Consent Act.                                                                  
H.R. 2677......................  The National Parks  H. Res. 323          Closed................            N/A.
                                  and National                                                                  
                                  Wildlife Refuge                                                               
                                  Systems Freedom                                                               
                                  Act of 1995.                                                                  
                                   PROCEDURE IN THE 104TH CONGRESS 2D SESSION                                   
H.R. 1643......................  To authorize the    H. Res. 334          Closed................            N/A.
                                  extension of                                                                  
                                  treatment (MFN)                                                               
                                  to the products                                                               
                                  of Bulgaria.                                                                  
H.J. Res. 134..................  Making continuing   H. Res. 336          Closed................            N/A.
H. Con. Res. 131...............   appropriations/                                                               
                                  procedures making                                                             
                                  the transmission                                                              
                                  of the continuing                                                             
                                  resolution H.J.                                                               
                                  Res. 134.                                                                     
H.R. 1358......................  Conveyance of       H. Res. 338          Closed................            N/A.
                                  National Marine                                                               
                                  Fisheries Service                                                             
                                  Laboratory at                                                                 
H.R. 2924......................  Social Security     H. Res. 355          Closed................            N/A.
                                  Guarantee Act.                                                                
H.R. 2854......................  The Agricultural    H. Res. 366          Restrictive...........       5D; 9R; 2
                                  Market Transition                                                  Bipartisan.
H.R. 994.......................  Regulatory Sunset   H. Res. 368          Open rule; Rule tabled            N/A.
                                  & Review Act of                                                               
H.R. 3021......................  To Guarantee the    H. Res. 371          Closed rule...........            N/A.
                                  Continuing Full                                                               
                                  Investment of                                                                 
                                  Social Security                                                               
                                  and Other Federal                                                             
                                  Funds in                                                                      
                                  Obligations of                                                                
                                  the United States.                                                            
H.R. 3019......................  A Further           H. Res. 372          Restrictive...........          2D/2R.
                                  Toward a Balanced                                                             
H.R. 2703......................  The Effective       H. Res. 380          Restrictive...........       6D; 7R; 4
                                  Death Penalty and                                                  Bipartisan.
                                  Public Safety Act                                                             
                                  of 1996.                                                                      
H.R. 2202......................  The Immigration     H. Res. 384          Restrictive...........     12D; 19R; 1
                                  and National                                                       Bipartisan.
                                  Interest Act of                                                               
H.J. Res. 165..................  Making further      H. Res. 386          Closed................            N/A.
                                  for FY 1996.                                                                  
H.R. 125.......................  The Gun Crime       H. Res. 388          Closed................            N/A.
                                  Enforcement and                                                               
                                  Second Amendment                                                              
                                  Restoration Act                                                               
                                  of 1996.                                                                      
H.R. 3136......................  The Contract With   H. Res. 391          Closed................            N/A.
                                  Advancement Act                                                               
                                  of 1996.                                                                      
H.R. 3103......................  The Health          H. Res. 392          Restrictive...........            N/A.
                                  Availability and                                                              
                                  Affordability Act                                                             
                                  of 1996.                                                                      
H.J. Res. 159..................  Tax Limitation      H. Res. 395          Restrictive...........              1D
H.R. 842.......................  Truth in Budgeting  H. Res. 396          Open..................            N/A.
H.R. 2715......................  Paperwork           H. Res. 409          Open..................            N/A.
                                  Elimination Act                                                               
                                  of 1996.                                                                      
H.R. 1675......................  National Wildlife   H. Res. 410          Open..................            N/A.
                                  Improvement Act                                                               
                                  of 1995.                                                                      
H.J. Res. 175..................  Further Continuing  H. Res. 411          Closed................            N/A.
                                  for FY 1996.                                                                  
H.R. 2641......................  United States       H. Res. 418          Open..................            N/A.
                                  Marshals Service                                                              
                                  Improvement Act                                                               
                                  of 1996.                                                                      
H.R. 2149......................  The Ocean Shipping  H. Res. 419          Open..................            N/A.
                                  Reform Act.                                                                   

[[Page H6777]]

H.R. 2974......................  To amend the        H. Res. 421          Open..................            N/A.
                                  Violent Crime                                                                 
                                  Control and Law                                                               
                                  Enforcement Act                                                               
                                  of 1994 to                                                                    
                                  provide enhanced                                                              
                                  penalties for                                                                 
                                  crimes against                                                                
                                  elderly and child                                                             
H.R. 3120......................  To amend Title 18,  H. Res. 422          Open..................            N/A.
                                  United States                                                                 
                                  Code, with                                                                    
                                  respect to                                                                    
                                  witness tampering                                                             
                                  and jury                                                                      
H.R. 2406......................  The United States   H. Res. 426          Open..................            N/A.
                                  Housing Act of                                                                
H.R. 3322......................  Omnibus Civilian    H. Res. 427          Open..................            N/A.
                                  Authorization Act                                                             
                                  of 1996.                                                                      
H.R. 3286......................  The Adoption        H. Res. 428          Restrictive...........         1D; 1R.
                                  Promotion and                                                                 
                                  Stability Act of                                                              
H.R. 3230......................  Defense             H. Res. 430          Restrictive...........      41 amends;
                                  Authorization                                                      20D; 17R; 4
                                  Bill FY 1997.                                                       bipartisan
H.R. 3415......................  Repeal of the 4.3-  H. Res. 436          Closed................            N/A.
                                  Cent Increase in                                                              
                                  Fuel Taxes.                                                                   
H.R. 3259......................  Intelligence        H. Res. 437          Restrictive...........            N/A.
                                  Authorization Act                                                             
                                  for FY 1997.                                                                  
H.R. 3144......................  The Defend America  H. Res. 438          Restrictive...........             1D.
H.R. 3448/H.R. 1227............  The Small Business  H. Res. 440          Restrictive...........             2R.
                                  Job Protection                                                                
                                  Act of 1996, and                                                              
                                  The Employee                                                                  
                                  Flexibility Act                                                               
                                  of 1996.                                                                      
H.R. 3517......................  Military            H. Res. 442          Open..................            N/A.
                                  Appropriations FY                                                             
H.R. 3540......................  Foreign Operations  H. Res. 445          Open..................            N/A.
                                  Appropriations FY                                                             
H.R. 3562......................  The Wisconsin       H. Res. 446          Restrictive...........            N/A.
                                  Works Waiver                                                                  
                                  Approval Act.                                                                 
H.R. 2754......................  Shipbuilding Trade  H. Res. 448          Restrictive...........             1R.
                                  Agreement Act.                                                                
H.R. 3603......................  Agriculture         H. Res. 451          Open..................            N/A.
                                  Appropriations FY                                                             
H.R. 3610......................  Defense             H. Res. 453          Open..................            N/A.
                                  Appropriations FY                                                             
H.R. 3662......................  Interior            H. Res. 455          Open..................            N/A.
                                  Appropriations FY                                                             
H.R. 3666......................  VA/HUD              H. Res. 456          Open..................            N/A.
* Contract Bills, 67% restrictive; 33% open. ** All legislation 1st Session, 53% restrictive; 47% open. *** All 
  legislation 2d Session, 60% restrictive; 40% open. **** All legislation 104th Congress, 56% restrictive; 44%  
  open. ***** NR indicates that the legislation being considered by the House for amendment has circumvented    
  standard procedure and was never reported from any House committee. ****** PQ Indicates that previous question
  was ordered on the resolution. ******* Restrictive rules are those which limit the number of amendments which 
  can be offered, and include so-called modified open and modified closed rules as well as completely closed    
  rules and rules providing for consideration in the House as opposed to the Committee of the Whole. This       
  definition of restrictive rule is taken from the Republican chart of resolutions reported from the Rules      
  Committee in the 103d Congress. N/A means not available.                                                      

  Mr. FROST. Mr. Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from 
Minnesota [Mr. Oberstar].
  Mr. OBERSTAR. Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentleman for yielding me this 
  Mr. Speaker, the VA-HUD appropriations bill, as reported to the 
House, allocates, apparently, $2.2 billion for Superfund, but of that 
amount $861 million is contingent upon future legislation to make the 
funds available for obligation. Actually, we are talking about $1.3 
billion that is really available for Superfund.
  The majority clearly is trying to point to this appropriation of $2.2 
billion as evidence of their commitment to Superfund and their 
commitment to environmental protection, but the Committee on the 
Budget, Congressional Budget Office, and the Parliamentarian scored the 
provision as exceeding the budget allocation and subject to a point of 
order. The Committee on Rules therefore included a self-executing 
provision in the rule that makes the additional $861 million available 
only upon a subsequent appropriation.
  Now, I view that as a form of doublespeak intended to make Superfund 
appropriations seem larger than they really are. The appropriations 
provision does not include any money above $1.3 billion. So what is the 
status of that $861 million? That money is available only if 
subsequently appropriated. And what does that mean? There will be no 
additional money for Superfund unless Congress acts a second time to 
appropriate it. And then, at that time, the appropriation will be 
subject to budgetary ceilings. And that further means that at that 
subsequent time the Committee on Appropriations will have to come back 
and find $861 million to cut someplace else in these programs. 
Otherwise, they will run up against the caps. They will have exceeded 
their cap.
  Now, that is not being candid and fair and open and honest about this 
process. We need real money to clean up hazardous wastesites, we need 
real money to protect human health and the environment, and doublespeak 
is not going to get us there.
  Mr. QUILLEN. Mr. Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the distinguished 
gentleman from Illinois [Mr. Weller].
  Mr. WELLER. Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentleman for yielding me this 
time to address the House and rise in support of the rule and in 
support of this VA-HUD appropriations bill.
  I represent probably the most diverse district in the State of 
Illinois. I represent part of the city of Chicago, the south suburbs in 
Cook and Will Counties, bedroom communities, farm towns, and a lot of 
corn fields. When I represent a very diverse district, I always look 
for things where there is a very common consensus, and in my district 
there is one item where there is unanimous consensus and that is for 
redevelopment of the Joliet Arsenal, a former military facility, 
largest single piece of property in northern Illinois, to redevelop 
that for peacetime uses.
  Frankly, I am very pleased that this effort, which has been a 
bipartisan effort, continues to move forward. The President signed our 
legislation in February to accomplish our goal setting aside 19,000 
acres for conservation, 3,000 acres for job creation, 985 acres to 
create the second largest national veterans cemetery. The VA-HUD 
appropriation bill continues that effort by working to make this 
veterans cemetery a reality.
  The Chicago area is now facing a shortage. We need new places to 
honor and bury our veterans. This legislation provides $18.4 million in 
funding for redevelopment and complete construction of this new 
veterans cemetery. I want to point out that the funding that is in this 
bill is exactly what the VA says they need in order to have this 
veterans cemetery in place and honoring our veterans by 1999.
  Again, I want to thank the chairman, my friend, the gentleman from 
California, Congressman Lewis, for his assistance, and the gentleman 
from Ohio, Mr. Stokes, the ranking member, for making this project, 
which has been a bipartisan project, to redevelop the Joliet Arsenal a 
reality. This legislation funds our veterans cemetery, and again I want 
to thank the House and urge bipartisan support and passage of this 
appropriations bill.
  Mr. FROST. Mr. Speaker, I yield 3 minutes to the gentleman from 
Massachusetts [Mr. Markey].
  Mr. MARKEY. Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentleman for yielding me this 
  Mr. Speaker, in last year's appropriations bill the Republicans 
attacked the EPA and the Superfund Program, and they attempted to slash 
the Superfund Program by 25 percent.
  When President Clinton refused to go along because of our success in 
highlighting this issue, the President vetoed the bill. The 
Republicans, because of Superfund and other programs, shut the 
Government of the United States down twice because they wanted to see 
programs like Superfund gutted. The truth of the matter is that there 
were furloughed Superfund Program workers all over the country and 
delays in the cleanup of toxic waste sites all over our country.
  Now, in this bill the Republicans contend they are putting in $2.2 
billion for Superfund. Sounds really great, but the truth is that this 
is really kind of a legislative sneak preview of coming attractions. 
But, like many Hollywood movie trailers, it is very deceptive, because 
while they are advertising that their bill is ``Rebecca of Sunnybrook 
Farms,'' the truth is that their actual bill is more like ``Nightmare 
on Elm Street,'' because in reality the $862 million which they contend 
is being put in the bill is not going to be appropriated this year in 
this bill. They are not putting the money in.
  So, here they are today saying, well, we are going to add in an extra 
$860 million or so, but we are not putting it in this year; we are 
going to put it in sometime in the future. And by the way, when we put 
the money in, it is

[[Page H6778]]

going to be to give rebates to polluters. That is right. Instead of the 
polluter who messed up a particular neighborhood paying to clean up the 
site, we, the American taxpayers, we are going to pay the polluter.
  Now, what kind of program is this? This is the Ed McMahon Polluters 
Rebate Sweepstakes program. That is right, the Ed McMahon Polluters 
Sweepstakes van pulls up in front of your corporate headquarters and 
announces that you may be a winner. If you have already been accused 
and accept responsibility for polluting and for cleaning up a hazardous 
waste site in your community, you may be eligible for million of 
dollars of taxpayers' money as the taxpayer pays the polluter for 
having cleaned up a site which they polluted.
  Rather than using these hundreds of millions of dollars to clean up 
orphan sites, to clean up sites that would not be cleaned up otherwise, 
no, the money in the Republican bill will be used to hand it over to 
the polluters.
  We must vote ``no'' on this proposal. It, in fact, represents just 
the opposite of where the American people want our Superfund Program to 
be headed.
  Mr. Speaker, I rise in opposition to the rule.
  In last year's appropriations bill for VA-HUD-independent agencies, 
the Republicans attacked EPA and the Superfund Program. They tried to 
slash funding for Superfund by almost 25 percent. And, when President 
Clinton refused to go along with their radical proposals, they shut 
down the Government twice. They furloughed Superfund workers and 
delayed the cleanup of toxic waste sites in dozens of communities 
around the Nation, including several in Massachusetts.
  This year, instead of mounting a direct assault on the program's 
funding, the Gingrich Republicans are claiming to provide Superfund 
with $2.2 billion in funding, nearly a billion dollars more than they 
provided last year. But when you look at the bill--and especially when 
you look at the convoluted rule they have crafted--it is clear this 
sham increase is really only an advertisement for future money. It's a 
special legislative sneak preview of coming attractions. Unfortunately, 
like so many Hollywood movie trailers, the preview is much different 
than the actual film. In this case, we've been offered previews of a 
legislative ``Rebecca of Sunnybrook Farm'' when the actual bill is more 
like a ``Nightmare on Elm Street.''
  The sad truth is that the Republican Superfund appropriations bill is 
still mean and still extreme. Instead of trying to slash Superfund 
funding, however, the GOP is trying to turn the Superfund program on 
its head by replacing the polluter pays principle with a new program of 
paying the polluter. The extra $861 million--if it is ever really 
appropriated--will be set aside in a polluter's slush fund, where it 
could be used to fund the new polluter's entitlement program contained 
in H.R. 2500, the Republican's Superfund reform bill which was approved 
last November by the House Commerce Committee's Subcommittee on 
Hazardous Materials. That bill replaces the polluter pays principle of 
the Superfund law with a requirement that taxpayer dollars and trust 
fund moneys be used to pay polluters rebate checks for cleaning up 
Superfund sites that they contaminated and may already have agreed to 
clean up themselves.
  Under the Republican proposal, Superfund will be tansformed into the 
Ed McMahon Polluter's Clearinghouse Sweepstakes. Superfund polluters 
will be getting letters in the mail announcing the good news:

       Congratulations, polluters, you may have already won 
     millions of dollars in fabulous cash rebates. All you have to 
     do is wait for Congress to pass this Superfund ``Reform'' 
     bill. Then, our Superfund Sweepstakes prize van will be 
     pulling up to your corporate suite--with a big ol' rebate 
     check in hand to pay you for cleaning up sites that you 

  We should oppose such radical and extreme proposals. Those who 
polluted the environment with hazardous wastes should bear personal 
responsibility for their actions. During House floor consideration of 
this bill I will be offering an amendment later in the debate, along 
with the gentleman from New Jersey [Mr. Pallone] and the gentleman from 
Pennsylvania [Mr. Borski] that would preserve the current policy of 
polluter pays and prevent taxpayer dollars and Superfund trust fund 
moneys from being misused to pay rebate checks to polluters. Those who 
are liable for contaminating a Superfund site or have entered into a 
court-approved consent decree to pay the costs of such a cleanup should 
pay these costs themselves. At the same time, our amendment will not 
impair mixed funding for cleanups in those circumstances where EPA has 
reached a consent agreement with a polluter that a portion of the 
clearnup will be funded from Superfund moneys.
  This amendment has the support of the Clinton administration, as well 
as a broad range of environmental and public interest groups, including 
the U.S. Public Interest Research Group, the Natural Resources Defense 
Council, Friends of the Earth, Taxpayers for Common Sense, and the 
Environmental Information Center. It will be one of the key 
environmental votes of the year, and we look forward to the floor 
debate on this critical issue.
  At this time, I urge my colleagues to defeat this rule. We should not 
be passing rules which transform appropriations bills into advertising 
promos for future appropriations bills. Let's be honest about how much 
funding Superfund will receive this year, and let's be honest about how 
these funds will be spent.
  Mr. QUILLEN. Mr. Speaker, I yield 6 minutes to the distinguished 
gentleman from Ohio [Mr. Oxley].
  (Mr. OXLEY asked and was given permission to revise and extend his 
  Mr. OXLEY. Mr. Speaker, I rise in support of the rule and 
congratulate the gentleman from California, [Mr. Lewis], the chairman 
of the committee, and the chairman and members of the Committee on 
Rules for putting together a very effective rule.
  Let me answer my friend from Massachusetts, who was so concerned 
about the reform of Superfund becoming the ``Nightmare on Elm Street.'' 
I would say the ``Nightmare on Elm Street'' has been running for the 
last 15 years, and it is called the existing Superfund law that has 
fostered litigation to the point where we are spending half of the 
money on lawyers and we have only cleaned up about 5 percent of the 
  Anybody who knows anything about the Superfund Program knows what a 
disaster it has been. Whether they are the most green of green 
environmentalists or whether they are an evil corporate polluter, they 
know that the Superfund Program as exists today is not working. We are 
trying to change that program.
  Now, the gentleman from Michigan talked about scams. Let me show my 
colleagues what a scam is. I have a program there that shows how the 
cleanup of the Superfund sites takes place under today's program. Now, 
that is probably the lead-in to the ``Nightmare on Elm Street,'' and it 
may be the cartoon, but look at all the hoops one has to jump through. 
And meanwhile, meanwhile, the program has cost some $30 billion. That 
is billion with a ``B.''
  We are here to change the program and make a lousy program work. I am 
disappointed with my friend from Massachusetts and others who 
apparently want to stay in a position where they are defending the 
status quo. I do not think that is defensible.
  I see my friend from California, the chairman of the committee, and I 
would like to ask him a question. If, in fact, we pass a Superfund 
reform bill, I want to know what is going to happen to the funding of 
the Superfund Program under the rule that we are debating today.
  Mr. LEWIS of California. Mr. Speaker, will the gentleman yield?
  Mr. OXLEY. I yield to the gentleman from California.
  Mr. LEWIS of California. Mr. Speaker, I appreciate my colleague 
yielding. This bill is a bill that funds some 20 Federal programs 
including the EPA. The Superfund Program is a piece of the EPA. 
Presently, within this measure is $1.33 billion for the Superfund 
  If we see a reauthorization bill, and the kind of work that will 
allow this program to go forward in a positive measure, we would add 
back the $861 million that is the subject of this discussion.
  If the gentleman will continue to yield, I was a bit astonished by 
the comments of the gentleman from Massachusetts [Mr. Markey]. Almost 
since I have been here in the House, I have sat back in wonderment as 
the gentleman has been a member of the committee responsible for 
authorizing Superfund. The Administrator of EPA 1\1/2\ years ago told 
us this program was broken. I have never seen the gentleman's proposed 
legislation. I do not see fixes coming out of the committee. I do not 
see fixes coming from the department.
  I hope that the authorizing committee will go forward with the 
bipartisan effort and support necessary for the program to work.
  Mr. OXLEY. Mr. Speaker, reclaiming my time, I thank the gentleman and 
I think that is really the point here.

[[Page H6779]]

This is a big carrot out for the members to work in a bipartisan way to 
get a reauthorization of the Superfund Program so that that extra money 
is available and we can take that money, instead of giving it to the 
lawyers, and we can put it into cleanup.
  That is really what the essence of this is all about. I am just 
disappointed with my friend from Massachusetts, who will be offering an 
amendment, as I understand during the title III of this bill, that 
apparently just says, hey, the status quo is fine. We can just continue 
on our merry way and pour money down a rat hole instead of really 
solving the problem. That is why I say I am disappointed with my 
  Mr. MARKEY. Mr. Speaker, will the gentleman yield?
  Mr. OXLEY. I yield to the gentleman from Massachusetts.
  Mr. MARKEY. Mr. Speaker, I just want to remind my good friend, the 
gentleman from California, that in fact we passed the bill 44 to 
nothing out of the Committee on Commerce reforming Superfund in 1994. 
And just to let the gentleman know, as he remembers, it died there in 
the waning bitter days of the end of the 1994 Congress. We had reformed 
Superfund on a bipartisan basis out of our committee on 1994, Democrat 
and Republican alike, unanimously.
  The larger question is where is this $850 million going to come from 
in sub-
sequent years unless we lift the cap on the VA bill without increasing 
the deficit in other places?
  Mr. OXLEY. Mr. Speaker, reclaiming my time, I yield to the gentleman 
from California [Mr. Lewis] because I think this puts it into light in 
terms of the budget caps and the flexibility therein. The gentleman 
knows a lot more about it than I do.
  Mr. LEWIS of California. Mr. Speaker, let me say that, first, we are 
about appropriating funds that are available under the lids that 
dramatically impact all of these agencies, VA, HUD, EPA, et cetera. 
Within that limitation, we are attempting to produce as much money as 
possible and can be meaningful insofar as the Superfund is concerned.
  I remind the gentleman that the other party controlled the House and 
both Houses during the last Congress. They controlled this House for 40 
years. They controlled the House since the Superfund was created. 
Everybody has known that the program has not worked almost from the 
beginning. It seems to me it is long past due that a bill was passed 
and sent to the President that changed this.
  Indeed, they produced a bill last year that supposedly was going to 
work. For some reason, the director, Ms. Browner, has not chosen to 
take that bill up and send it up here and said, yes, this is the 
  There is no doubt this is a complicated process. There has to be a 
reauthorization, hopefully to make this process make sense. There has 
to be appropriations. That is our job. There also has to be ways and 
means work that reexercises the tax in order to provide the fund in the 
first place. So it is a complex issue. We have to get on with it, 
indeed, instead of pointing fingers at other Members.
  Mr. FROST. Mr. Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from 
Minnesota [Mr. Sabo].
  Mr. SABO. Mr. Speaker, I thank my friend for yielding the time, and I 
rise in opposition to this unique rule. It is a rule which appears to 
say that about $860 million is appropriated but it is not appropriated. 
It is not counted.
  This is and of itself is sort of strange. Then we have a strange 
provision in the Budget Act with says this money can be allocated to 
the Committee on Appropriations if certain things happen.
  Mr. Speaker, I think it is just sort of a method of hiding the fact 
that many of the discretionary limits set by the majority simply were 
not working, are not workable and they are trying to find a variety of 
ways to get around the fact that their top dollar numbers simply do not 
work for discretionary spending. But this money appears to be very 
  If the committee acts and the Congress acts to reenact some taxes 
that relate to the Superfund, it appears that money can be spent twice, 
once for the chairman of the Committee on the Budget to increase the 
allocation to the Committee on Appropriations so the money can be spent 
on the Superfund; but the revenue base was not increased, so these same 
dollars can be counted as offsets to other tax cuts for pay-as-you-go 
  So it would appear under the Budget Act we have these dollars in this 
bill now which are appropriated but we are going to be told have to be 
reappropriated again in some future time in a special budget allocation 
which makes some money available, if a tax increase for Superfund is 
enacted, but that can be both spent and used to offset other tax cuts.
  Mr. Speaker, this is a very unique type of rule, very unique type of 
budget process that is the ultimate in game playing.
  Mr. QUILLEN. Mr. Speaker, I ask the Chair the time remaining on both 
  The SPEAKER pro tempore (Mr. Hastings of Washington). The gentleman 
from Tennessee [Mr. Quillen] has 7 minutes remaining, and the gentleman 
from Texas [Mr. Frost] has 11 minutes remaining.
  Mr. QUILLEN. Mr. Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.
  Mr. FROST. Mr. Speaker, I yield 2 minutes and 30 seconds to the 
gentleman from Texas [Mr. Stenholm].
  (Mr. STENHOLM asked and was given permission to revise and extend his 
  Mr. STENHOLM. Mr. Speaker, I rise in opposition to the rule allowing 
for the consideration of H.R. 3666, the VA-HUD-Independent Agencies 
appropriation for fiscal year 1997.
  My problem with this rule should come as no surprise to anyone, 
because it embodies precisely the shortcomings which are inevitable 
when supporters try to make a bill be all things to all people. The 
price of being less than forthright, the cost of refusing to decide 
what your priorities are, is always a dependency on gimmicks and 
parliamentary gymnastics, employed in the hopes that our colleagues, 
first, and our constituents, second, will fail to see through the ruse.
  I stand here as one who wants to see the Superfund Program 
reauthorized. I largely support the majority in their efforts to reform 
the Superfund Program. I commend Mr. Oxley and Mr. Lewis for the work 
they have done in reforming the Superfund Program. I also stand here as 
one who believes we must be honest about the cost of those things which 
we say are a priority and then we must pay for those priorities by 
finding savings elsewhere.
  This rule attempts to have it both ways when it comes to the cost of 
the Superfund Program. To those who support the $861 million 
appropriation, the bill says, ``Sure, we'll take care of you--here's 
your money.'' To those who are concerned about how this additional 
spending will add to the deficit, the rule says, ``Not to worry--you 
don't have to count this $861 million. We'll take care of that later on 
in a supplemental appropriation.''
  Back home we call that being ``too cute by half.'' Not only is it 
dishonest; it also insults the people who are expected to buy off on a 
rationale that conflicting goals can be accommodated without sacrifice 
being made anywhere else.
  There were many times during the previous Congresses that I spoke out 
against rules which abused a sense of democratic fairness. I especially 
protested the regular waiving of the Budget Act, an act designed to 
protect the integrity of the legislative process and impose a measure 
of fiscal discipline. But I have to say we are testing new depths of 
parliamentary gimmickry in this Congress with this rule. We have now 
waived the Budget Act over 700 times since its enactment. In addition 
to making a mockery of the act, this sort of behavior adds to the 
skepticism and cynicism which continues to undermine the credibility of 
this institution.
  There are simple questions to be answered here: Are we appropriating 
funds or aren't we? If we are appropriating funds, are they adding to 
the deficit or have we made cuts elsewhere to support this priority? 
Are we honoring allocations and appropriation caps or are we attempting 
to spend nearly a billion dollars outside of the normal budget 
  These are questions that should be easy to answer in a bipartisan way 
if legislation is being presented in a strightforward way.

[[Page H6780]]

  Unfortunately, today's rule is anything but straightforward. Vote 
  Mr. FROST. Mr. Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from Utah 
[Mr. Orton].
  (Mr. ORTON asked and was given permission to revise and extend his 
  Mr. ORTON. Mr. Speaker, I rise to speak about two amendments that I 
have filed which deal with modernizing the FHA single family mortgage 
program. I rise now because I expect that these amendments would be 
ruled out of order as legislating an appropriations bill. Therefore, I 
will not offer these amendments during the consideration of the bill, 
but let me explain them.
  One of the most successful Government programs is the FHA single 
family loan program. Since its inception, it has provided over 50 
million mortgages and has played an important role in increasing home 
ownership. In fact 40 percent of first-time home buyers use FHA. And it 
has been successful at no cost to the taxpayer.
  Two years ago, the House enacted a housing bill which included 
important provisions to improve and modernize the FHA program. 
Unfortunately, these proposals died when the other body failed to act 
on that bill. With the end of the 104th Congress in sight, it is 
frustrating that there has been no legislative vehicle in the Committee 
on Banking and Financial Services to revisit these proposals.
  Therefore, the first amendment I filed is an end to the law which 
prohibits parents from lending money to their children for a down 
payment on a home financed by FHA. This prohibition is antifamily and 
anti-home ownership. Why should the Government be telling parents they 
cannot lend money to their children?

  The second amendment is an effort to simplify FHA regulations, reduce 
costs, reduce bureaucracy, and ultimately lower closing costs for FHA 
borrowers. It contains two parts: The first is a simplification of the 
unnecessarily complex two-part down payment calculation, which is a 
nightmare. This provision would greatly simplify the process, 
maintaining the same general down payment levels.
  The second part allows designated FHA lenders to issue their own 
mortgage certificates. This change would remove a bureaucratic 
roadblock to the execution of FHA mortgages ending costly delays faced 
while waiting for HUD to issue certificates. Since such lenders have 
already been giving designated underwriting authority, this change will 
not affect the quality of loans approved. But it will reduce the need 
for HUD personnel and will eliminate unnecessary delays.
  All three of these provisions passed the House 2 years ago with 
bipartisan support. They are supported by HUD, and they pose no 
additional risk to the solvency of the FHA reserve fund. They ought to 
be enacted into law, and we should find a way to do it before we 
adjourn this year.
  Mr. FROST. Mr. Speaker, I yield 1\1/2\ minutes to the gentleman from 
New York [Mr. Manton].
  Mr. MANTON. Mr. Speaker, I rise in opposition to this rule.
  Mr. Speaker, the majority's self-proclaimed love affair with an open 
and fair rules process appears to have soured. They apparently reserve 
the right to shamelessly use the rule to subvert the legislative 
process and fool the American people.
  In crafting this rule for the VA-HUD appropriations bill, they have 
elevated legislative deception to a new height. This rule contains 
self-executing amendments that circumvent the majority's own budget 
caps and waives points of order against the bill for exceeding spending 
limits. Why? So the majority can claim they are spending more money on 
Superfund cleanup when, in fact, the money simply does not exist.
  Clearly, the majority wants to improve their image on the 
environment. They have been severely battered by the public and the 
press for their aggressive attempts to dismantle environmental 
legislation and reverse the real progress that has been made on this 
front over the last 25 years. This has led to all types of 
proenvironment shenanigans, including today's attempt to paint 
themselves green with claims of substantial funding for the Superfund 
Program, an imaginary $2.2 billion.
  But, therein lies the hoax, $861 million of that total is contingent 
not only on reauthorization of the Superfund Program, but more 
importantly, it is dependent on an appropriation that would potentially 
occur at a later date.
  Last year, the majority shut down the Government demanding a budget 
based on honest numbers using CBO projections. But the so-called 
funding the majority has included in this measure for the Superfund 
Program is so illusory, CBO wouldn't even score it.
  The blue smoke is getting thick. I urge my colleagues to defeat the 
  Mr. QUILLEN. Mr. Speaker, I yield such time as he may consume to the 
gentleman from New York [Mr. Solomon], distinguished chairman of the 
House Committee on Rules.
  Mr. SOLOMON. Mr. Speaker, I really am just, I am sort of shocked at 
what I am hearing here. I am going to tell my colleagues something, 
they defeat this rule, this bill does not come to the floor, they 
better look out when it comes back the next time. As a matter of fact, 
I have a list of cutting amendments over there in the drawer. We might 
just offer all 75 of them.
  I am getting a little fed up with this. We could have brought this 
rule to the floor and did what the Democrats have done for the last 40 
years. That is, just waive the Budget Act, and let the deficits go up. 
We did not do that, my colleagues. What we did in order to get this 
bill to the floor, we waived the Budget Act, but then we self-executed 
the correction of the violation so that, when the bill comes to the 
floor, there is no violation.
  Let us get something straight. President Clinton vetoed the Superfund 
business taxes that now have expired. If he had not vetoed them, they 
would now be in effect. So where we stand now is that the Committee on 
the Budget created a Superfund reserve fund in the fiscal year 1997 
budget resolution. I see the chairman standing over there, the former 
chairman, the ranking member. But this reserve fund allows the 
gentleman from Ohio, Chairman Kasich, to increase the committee 
allocations when the Superfund Program is reformed and new money is 
provided by an extension, and this is the key, by an extension of the 
Superfund business taxes.
  This is neutral and has nothing to do now that we have self-executed 
this portion out, has nothing to do with unbalancing the budget. That 
is where we stand.
  I want my colleagues to come over here and vote for this rule. It is 
an open rule. If they have a problem with it, come over here and offer 
amendments. They are all in order, anything they want to offer that is 
germane, come over here and do it. Let us have it out, and have an even 
and fair debate. That is what this is all about, fairness.
  Mr. FROST. Mr. Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the gentlewoman from 
Connecticut [Ms. DeLauro].
  Ms. DeLAURO. Mr. Speaker, I rise to oppose the rule. This Congress's 
continued attack on our Nation's environment is unforgivable. If this 
rule passes, the air we breath and the water we drink will become 
  The American people need to know that more than $800 million included 
in this bill for cleaning up toxic waste dumps does not exist. How can 
this be, you ask? Even though this amount of funding is printed in the 
bill, the congressional majority has attached strings to the 
legislation that will prevent the money from becoming available.
  The rule is bad for two reasons. First, it is budgetary smoke and 
mirrors. It contains money that doesn't exist. And second, it will 
prevent a vote on an amendment by Representatives Markey, Pallone, and 
Borski that would make this $800 million for toxic cleanups available 
at the beginning of the 1997 funding period. The rule for the VA-HUD 
bill prevents this vote, and that's why I oppose it.
  In my congressional district, children and families will continue to 
be threatened by a toxic waste dump because this trick of the light 
money for the Federal Superfund Program will not be available at the 
beginning of next year. For more than 80 years, Raymark Industries sent 
asbestos, lead, dioxins, and PCB's into the air. Stratford, CT became a 
dumping ground for

[[Page H6781]]

Raymark's toxic waste. Children's parks and schools were contaminated.
  The Environmental Protection Agency has made great strides in 
cleaning up the Raymark site. It is on the verge of being a model of 
success, with development proposed for the site that will create jobs 
and bring in tax revenue. But this bill both cuts the cleanup program 
and prevents the expenditure of $800 million.
  If any American believes that these cuts will not prevent the cleanup 
of toxic sites like Raymark, they are being misled. I ask my Republican 
colleagues to help defeat the budget gimmickry and the 
antienvironmental extremism this bill represents.

                              {time}  1445

  Mr. FROST. Mr. Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the gentlewoman from 
Texas [Ms. Jackson-Lee].
  (Ms. JACKSON-LEE asked and was given permission to revise and extend 
her remarks.)
  Ms. JACKSON-LEE. Mr. Speaker, I rise to call attention to the need to 
provide fair and adequate housing for our Nation's poor and to 
recognize the importance of support for our veterans and, as well, for 
us to stay ahead in space exploration. But however we find ourselves 
with a rule, once again, on appropriation legislation that helps some 
and hurts many.
  A cornerstone of this country's public housing is affordability. The 
elitist notion that $25 a month is not too much to ask for rent is the 
same notion that resulted in the underfunding of this Nation's public 
and affordable housing. I believe it is important that public housing 
authorities have few requirements in creating a voice for residents of 
public housing, the decisionmaking process that affects their homes. It 
is important that when one is poor, the poor have the opportunity to 
have good housing.
  I would simply like to add as well that we have a rule that has a 
funny mechanism that allows Republicans to pretend they are providing 
an additional $861 million for Superfund cleanups when, in fact, the 
funds cannot be spent until a second appropriation bill is approved.
  So we have a rule that in fact disallows us helping some and hurts 
many. I would like to also add that because of what we face in my 
community that I will add an amendment to this process to give more 
flexibility to adding one-for-one replacement where there are waiting 
lists of 6,000 or more.
  We need to confront the issues of this appropriations bill in a fair 
manner. This rule disallows that, and I ask my colleagues to not 
support this rule.
  Mr. FROST. I have no remaining requests for time, and I yield back 
the balance of my time.
  Mr. QUILLEN. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume 
to say this is an open rule and for the life of me I cannot understand 
why people would, any Member of this body would, oppose it, and I urge 
the adoption of the rule and passage of the bill.
  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. Hastings of Washington). The question is 
on the resolution.
  The question was taken; and the Speaker pro tempore announced that 
the ayes appeared to have it.
  Mr. FROST. 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 
  The SPEAKER pro tempore. Evidently a quorum is not present.
  The Sergeant at Arms will notify absent Members.
  The vote was taken by electronic device, and there were--yeas 249, 
nays 166, not voting 21, as follows:

                             [Roll No 269]


     Baker (CA)
     Baker (LA)
     Barrett (NE)
     Bryant (TN)
     Collins (GA)
     Franks (CT)
     Franks (NJ)
     Greene (UT)
     Hall (TX)
     Hastings (WA)
     Johnson (CT)
     Johnson, E. B.
     Johnson, Sam
     Lewis (CA)
     Lewis (KY)
     Miller (FL)
     Payne (VA)
     Smith (MI)
     Smith (NJ)
     Smith (TX)
     Smith (WA)
     Taylor (NC)
     Watts (OK)
     Weldon (FL)
     Weldon (PA)
     Young (AK)
     Young (FL)


     Barrett (WI)
     Brown (CA)
     Brown (FL)
     Brown (OH)
     Collins (IL)
     Collins (MI)
     de la Garza
     Fields (LA)
     Frank (MA)
     Green (TX)
     Hall (OH)
     Hastings (FL)
     Jackson (IL)
     Jackson-Lee (TX)
     Johnson (SD)
     Kennedy (MA)
     Kennedy (RI)
     Lewis (GA)
     Miller (CA)
     Payne (NJ)
     Peterson (MN)
     Taylor (MS)
     Watt (NC)

                             NOT VOTING--21

     Bryant (TX)
     Fields (TX)
     Peterson (FL)

                              {time}  1509

  Mr. MORAN changed his vote from ``yea'' to ``nay.''
  Mr. JONES of North Carolina changed his vote from ``nay'' to ``yea.''
  So the resolution was agreed to.
  The result of the vote was announced as above recorded.
  A motion to reconsider was laid on the table.

[[Page H6782]]


  Mr. CLAY. Mr. Speaker, I offer a privileged resolution (H. Res. 459) 
and ask for its immediate consideration.
  The Clerk read the resolution, as follows:

                              H. Res. 459

       Resolved, That the House has heard with profound sorrow of 
     the death of the Honorable Bill Emerson, a Representative 
     from the State of Missouri.
       Resolved, That a committee on such Members of the House as 
     the Speaker may designate, together with such Members of the 
     Senate as may be joined, be appointed to attend the funeral.
       Resolved, That the Sergeant at Arms of the House be 
     authorized and directed to take such steps as may be 
     necessary for carrying out the provisions of these 
     resolutions and that the necessary expenses in connection 
     therewith be paid out of the contingent fund of the House.
       Resolved, That the Clerk communicate these resolutions to 
     the Senate and transmit a copy thereof to the family of the 
       Resolved, That when the House adjourns today, it adjourn as 
     a further mark of respect to the memory of the deceased.

  The SPEAKER pro tempore (Mr. Dreier). The gentleman from Missouri 
[Mr. Clay], the dean of the delegation, is recognized for 1 hour.
  Mr. CLAY. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume.
  Mr. Speaker, as dean of the Missouri delegation, I rise today to pay 
tribute to a great man from Missouri, a thoughtful and pragmatic Member 
of this body, a widely respected colleague, a friend, and a man who 
truly loved this institution and all the good that it represents.
  To know Bill Emerson was to respect Bill Emerson. I know of no other 
more likable Member of this institution. On many political issues, he 
and I had genuine disagreements. But it is not those differences of 
opinion that I remember as I recall the life of Bill Emerson. Rather 
what I remember is that Bill Emerson was a man who was not limited by 
ideology and party label. If a compromise could be reached, Bill would 
reach for it. If Bill Emerson thought that political differences could 
be bridged in the best interest of the people of his district, his home 
State, or the people of this great Nation, Bill would help erect that 
  As we bid farewell to Bill Emerson, let us be forever mindful of his 
gallant leadership to eradicate world hunger. As vice-chairman of the 
Select Committee on Hunger, Bill walked the walk by placing his own 
personal comfort and safety on the line. He traveled to Somalia in 1992 
to gain firsthand knowledge of the horrors of mass starvation going on 
in that far-off land. Later, when that Select Committee was targeted 
for elimination, Bill joined our colleague Tony Hall, in his fast to 
bring attention to that regrettable decision by this institution. And, 
finally, Bill Emerson made his own pledge to contribute $10,000 to the 
hunger caucus formed to fill part of the void left by elimination of 
the hunger committee.
  On behalf of my family and the people of the First Congressional 
District of Missouri, let me express deepest sympathy to Bill's wife Jo 
Ann, his daughters, and other members of Bill's family. Thank you for 
sharing this decent and compassionate human being with our Nation. Rest 
well, Bill. All of us who serve in this institution that you loved so 
dearly will miss you.

                              {time}  1515

  Mr. Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from Pennsylvania 
[Mr. Weldon].
  (Mr. WELDON of Pennsylvania asked and was given permission to revise 
and extend his remarks.)
  Mr. WELDON of Pennsylvania. Mr. Speaker, I rise with great sadness to 
join in the sorrow of this institution at the loss of our dear friend 
and colleague, Bill Emerson. As our friend and leader from Missouri 
stated so aptly, Bill was one of our colleagues who was always there to 
work in a bipartisan way on the priorities of this country. Whether it 
would be the problem of hunger in the world or in this country, or 
agricultural problems that affect so many districts, or whether it be 
our relations with Germany, where Bill was so instrumental in starting 
the Bundestag, the congressional effort to strengthen ties, Bill 
Emerson was in fact this institution's leader.
  However, I knew Bill Emerson  in a different light, Mr. Speaker. In 
the last session of Congress he was named to be a bipartisan cochair of 
a task force dealing with disaster issues with our friend and 
colleague, the gentleman from Illinois [Mr. Durbin]. Having had the 
pleasure of serving with both of them, we worked for 6 months on 
looking at ways that we could improve the response to handle those 
disasters that affect all of our districts, and in Bill's case the 
terrible floods that ravaged the people of Missouri and the central 
part of this great Nation. Again, Bill Emerson rose to the task and was 
a leader in this institution and helped us craft a bipartisan bill that 
now enjoys the support of over 260 of our colleagues.
  As a matter of fact, Mr. Speaker, last month Bill Emerson was 
recognized by the 1.5 million men and women of this Nation's fire and 
emergency services as the 1995-1996 legislator of the year. That is 
because of Bill Emerson's tireless efforts on behalf of those people 
who have to face the problems and tragedies associated with disasters 
in this great Nation.
  On behalf of all of those people who have suffered and all of those 
1.5 million people who day in and day out respond to disasters, I rise 
to pay tribute to our friend and colleague. I can think of no more 
fitting tribute, Mr. Speaker, than if this body would take up the 
Natural Disaster Protection Partnership Act, Bill Emerson's bill, in 
this session to pay tribute and homage to this great American leader.
  Mr. CLAY. Mr. Speaker, I yield 3 minutes to the gentleman from 
Missouri [Mr. Skelton].
  Mr. SKELTON. Mr. Speaker, I had the opportunity and the privilege for 
some 7 to 8 years to ride to and from McLean, VA to the Capitol with my 
fellow Missourian, Bill Emerson. We would start out the day, we would 
solve all of the problems of the world and, unfortunately, by the time 
we went back to our houses in the evening together, all of the problems 
would fall apart. He was a wonderful companion, a wonderful friend.
  Memory and friendship are funny things. They go hand-in-hand. I will 
long remember the discussions we had: Political, legislative, Missouri, 
Westminster College, where he went to school; families, angels, 
agriculture, Fort Leonard Wood, the gamut of subjects was nearly 
covered by our conversations. It was always in a spirit of warmth, 
joviality, kindness, and yes, vision, that he spoke of things we 
  This is a fitting tribute, and I compliment the gentleman from St. 
Louis, MO, Mr. Clay for bringing it to the floor, for Bill Emerson will 
long be remembered in this body, but he will long be remembered at home 
where he really cared for the people that he represented.
  He talked about them. He told me stories about them. He was proud of 
them. He liked to talk about the unusual legislation that he had from 
time to time, the wild horses bill and how the bureaucrats were trying 
to do them in and how he won that here on the floor. How proud he was 
of his family, those wonderful four young ladies and his lovely wife, 
Jo Ann. Bill Emerson will long be remembered, not just as a legislator, 
not just as one who was a child of this House, knowing that he started 
out as a page here, but he will long be remembered by so many of us as 
a warm and good and decent friend. I am so pleased and honored to have 
walked along life's pathway with him through those years.
  Mr. CLAY. Mr. Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from 
Missouri [Mr. Hancock].
  Mr. HANCOCK. Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentleman for yielding me this 
  Mr. Speaker, I guess it was about 7\1/2\ years ago I was sworn in as 
a Member of the U.S. Congress. I had known Bill Emerson for quite some 
time. He had been up here for about 8 years. Bill and I used to stand 
back there at the back row and I would ask him for his advice and 
counsel, but I remember long about February 1989, the first substantive 
vote that we actually had up here in the Congress, and I do not 
remember what the vote was, but I was green as a gourd and I did not 
really understand the process.
  I had never held a public office, I had never held a legislative 
position. I was back there kind of scratching my head and Bill walked 
up to me and said, he

[[Page H6783]]

said, what is the matter, Mel? He said, you have a problem? And I said, 
well, I do not know for sure how to vote on this. He said, well, he 
said, here in the Congress you have one of two choices. You can either 
vote politics or you can vote what is right. Sometimes they are the 
same, sometimes they are not. But he said, I know you, and I know 
southwest Missouri, and I know the people of the State of Missouri. And 
he said, Mel, if you will just vote your gut feeling on anything that 
comes up here in Washington, DC, that we are voting on, he said, you 
will probably be right about 99 percent of the time.
  Following that conversation, I went ahead and voted, and I thought 
about it regularly when some of these tough decisions come up. The only 
time, and there has only been once or twice that I did not follow his 
recommendation, and I went home at night and could not sleep about it. 
I decided that that was not going to happen.
  So for the past roughly 7\1/2\ years when the tough decisions come 
up, I think back to what Bill Emerson told me right back there at the 
rail about 6 weeks after I became a Member of the U.S. Congress. With 
the conversations we had, his loyalty to this organization, the House 
is going to seriously miss the institutional memory that Bill Emerson 
  It is with deep regret that I think all of us mourn the passing of 
Bill Emerson, but I also think we can be positive because of the way 
Bill did pass. He stayed here, he did his job, he was concerned right 
up to the very day that he went to the hospital about maintaining a 
voting record, and one of the things Bill Emerson used to say is, the 
vote I cast here in the Congress does not belong to me, it belongs to 
the people that I represent. A great American, a great individual.
  Mr. CLAY. Mr. Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from 
Missouri [Mr. Volkmer].
  Mr. VOLKMER. Mr. Speaker, I wish to join my colleagues today in 
honoring a person who to me was not just a colleague, but like many 
others was a friend. It is a day of sadness for us all, and it was a 
great day of sadness when I heard Sunday of the death of my friend Bill 
  Mr. Speaker, Bill and I go back. I was here a few years before he 
came, but when he came in 1981 and began his service on the Committee 
on Agriculture, and I was a member also of the Committee on 
Agriculture, we worked together, he for the people of southeast 
Missouri and I for the people of northeast Missouri.
  Our districts border along that same Mississippi River, he in Cape 
Girardeau and I in Hannibal. We had a lot of similar interests in our 
districts and then we had some differences. We discussed them not only 
during meetings of the Committee on Agriculture, but as our colleague, 
the gentleman from Missouri [Mr. Hancock], has said before, back behind 
the rail many times discussing things, whether sitting on the floor, 
other times in our offices. Either he would visit me or I would visit 
him, and we would discuss legislation and what was good for our 
  Just to give you some examples of things that we worked together on, 
back in the 1993 flood, it hit the northeast part of Missouri before it 
hit the southeast, but it hit the southeast just as hard as it did the 
northeast. We worked together working with the Corps of Engineers and 
others to bring about some relief for the flood victims.

  One of the things that when I came up with the buyout bill so that 
people would be able to move out of that floodplain. It was his efforts 
in the Committee on Public Works, when that bill had to go through the 
Committee on Public Works, along with others on the committee, but 
primarily Bill, that he was able to move that bill within a few short 
weeks out of the House, through the Senate and on to the President's 
  He not only had a love for the House of Representatives, he had a 
love for government in general, and he knew government. He believed 
firmly, strongly, in a government of the people, by the people, and for 
the people, and I too wish to join in saying to the people of the great 
State of Missouri and of the United States, we have lost a leader. To 
his wife, Jo Ann, who has lost a great husband, his four daughters who 
have lost a great father, I offer sincere condolences, to Jo Ann and 
the children, and I also wish that all of us would be able to attend 
the funeral, but I know that is not going to be possible. But I know 
that all of our hearts are with the family at this time, and to his 
mother who awaits him now in Cape Girardeau, I send my condolences 

                              {time}  1530

  Mr. CLAY. Mr. Speaker, I yield 3 minutes to the gentlewoman from 
Missouri [Ms. Danner].
  Ms. DANNER. Mr. Speaker, a good friend passed away the other day. 
Bill Emerson was a friend of the Congress, a friend of the people of 
Missouri, and a friend of mine.
  Bill was the type of individual whom others hope or aspire to become 
like. His interest was the public interest. His concerns were the 
public concerns, and his conscience was indeed the public conscience.
  One of the many reasons Bill was so beloved by the people of Missouri 
and the other Members of Congress, both Democrats and Republicans 
alike, is because of his unique genuineness of character. People know 
that when they met Bill Emerson, the candidate or the legislator, that 
they were first and foremost meeting Bill Emerson, the man.
  He always had a very clear understanding of where campaigning ended 
and when the business of legislating and serving began. If we had more 
public servants like Bill Emerson, I have no question that the cynicism 
many Americans hold toward their Government would evaporate and be 
quickly replaced by the hope and optimism that was so evident in Bill 
  Bill was a man of enormous kindness and thoughtfulness, traits that 
even the scourge of cancer could not take away.
  Bill worked diligently, he worked hard, and he worked faithfully 
right up until the very end. The very first day I noticed that he was 
not on the floor and was missing his first vote, I learned it was 
because one of his daughters was graduating from high school. Until the 
very, very end, he was on the floor voting for his constituents.
  At a time here in the Congress, and in our United States, when the 
shifting demographics raised serious concerns that the voice of rural 
America, an area many of us represent, among others, would be reduced 
to a whisper, Bill stood as a giant for our small towns, farms, and the 
entire agricultural community.
  All the while, he also stood as a bastion of civility, using reason 
and friendship to accomplish what others had failed to do through 
bombastic rhetoric and political gamesmanship.
  I consider it a very real personal privilege to have worked so 
closely with Bill in prior weeks on some bipartisan legislation he 
supported so strongly, one that would provide more food for the hungry 
in our Nation, an effort that was ever foremost in his mind, that of 
nutrition and feeding the hungry amongst us.
  I will miss Bill's friendship, Bill's leadership, Bill's compassion, 
as will innumerable others. He departs our world leaving the State of 
Missouri and the U.S. Congress infinitely better because of his 
  The career we honor in fitting ceremony today, the people of Missouri 
will remember in more everyday ways for years to come as their lives 
have been enriched by Bill Emerson, an American treasure and one of the 
best and brightest ever to serve our State of Missouri.
  Bill, we will miss you.
  Mr. CLAY. Mr. Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from 
Missouri [Mr. Gephardt], the distinguished minority leader.
  Mr. GEPHARDT. Mr. Speaker, I rise today to pay tribute to a dear 
friend of mine, and a fellow Missourian, who dies this week after a 
lifetime of service to his country and to his community. Of course we 
are talking today about our dear friend, Representative Bill Emerson.
  Bill's passing is a tremendous loss for me personally and for all of 
us who came from his State. We worked very closely over the years, and 
I always knew him as a man of quiet peace and decency to every person 
that he ever met. He was simply one of the finest human beings to ever 
pass through these halls. How he did love this institution of the House 
of Representatives in which he spent most of his life.

[[Page H6784]]

  But his passing is also a tremendous loss for the entire U.S. 
Congress. He was someone who could always reach across the aisle and 
work with both Democrats and Republicans for the sake of his beloved 
Missouri and the entire country.
  He had more accomplishments than we have time today to list, like his 
dedication at home to improving Highway 32 or fighting for a new bridge 
across the Mississippi River, or just fighting for his constituents, in 
so many ways. All of this will serve as monuments to his life and to 
his work.
  We all came to respect Bill's levelheadedness, even in the most 
tumultuous debates. His courage in the face of his illness is something 
that will stay with all of us for our entire lives. He missed only five 
votes in this Congress. His was a record of constant and consistent 
  Mr. Speaker, I ask my colleagues to join all of us in a celebration 
of the life of Bill Emerson. His mark on this institution will forever 
be remembered. Our thoughts and our prayers and our wishes are today 
with his dear family, his dear friends, and all the loved ones who so 
much grieve today his passing.
  Mr. CLAY. Mr. Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the gentlewoman from 
Missouri [Ms. McCarthy].
  Ms. McCARTHY. Mr. Speaker, I want to join my colleagues on both sides 
of the aisle in paying tribute to my fellow Missourian, the gentle man 
from Missouri, Bill Emerson, and to thank the gentleman from Missouri 
[Mr. Clay] for bringing this resolution before the House.
  I joined the Congress a year and a half ago, but I have long admired 
Mr. Emerson's ability to build bridges between this aisle, which 
oftentimes is very wide. He made friends with his engaging personality 
and he kept them with his honest and fair approach to lawmaking.
  I had the opportunity to serve with him on the Committee on 
Transportation and Infrastructure where he was a wonderful mentor to 
me. We worked together to bring Federal assistance to Missouri, to 
three grossly deteriorated bridges across the State, the Chouteau 
Bridge in my district and Representative Danner's district, the 
Hannibal Bridge in Representative Volkmer's district, and a bridge in 
Cape Girardeau, which I hope will one day bear his name in tribute to 
his great efforts in this Congress.
  We must never forget Representative Emerson's commitment to upholding 
the integrity of this body, and we must embrace his cooperative spirit, 
which I hope will guide us through the remainder of this 104th Congress 
and the challenges that face us.
  It has been an honor to have served with him, and he will be missed 
by all of us. I envy those who served with him far longer than I did. I 
will treasure those quiet, witty, thoughtful conversations, so rich in 
history and so full of wisdom.
  I send my heartfelt condolences to his family, to the citizens of the 
8th District, and to this great Nation, and I join with my leader in 
celebration of his goodness.
  Mr. CLAY. Mr. Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from 
Minnesota [Mr. Ramstad].
  Mr. RAMSTAD. I thank the gentleman for yielding me the time.
  Mr. Speaker, Bill Emerson was loved by all of us in this body and he 
will be missed by all of us.
  We all knew Bill Emerson was a skillful legislator who represented 
the best in public service. I always knew Bill Emerson the person. He 
was one of my closest friends here. I knew the loving, caring, honest 
guy Bill was. He cared deeply about people, all people, from all walks 
of life. But his passion, Mr. Speaker, was to reach out to people like 
me, people recovering from alcoholism. Until his cancer incapacitated 
him, Bill held meetings in his office every Wednesday noon, always 
there, for all of us, always there with a listening ear, always there 
to help others still suffering the ravages of alcoholism and drug 
addiction, always there setting up interventions for families, always 
there to talk to spouses of Members who are in trouble with this 
disease of alcoholism. Bill Emerson was a true inspiration to all of us 
who care about this disease of alcoholism. I am not breaching his 
anonymity because Bill Emerson has given this talk before, publicly. He 
was a true profile in courage, a true profile in courage for the way he 
lived and the way he died.
  I talked to Bill Emerson  a week before he passed on. He said, ``Jim, 
if I'm not going to make it, I'm going to go sober.'' Bill left us 
sober, and he left us a wonderful, wonderful legacy, those of us 
recovering and all of us as well as those still suffering from this 
disease. To Jo Ann and Bill's four wonderful daughters, thank you for 
sharing this truly wonderful human being with all of us. Bill, we love 
  Mr. CLAY. Mr. Speaker, I yield 1 minute to the gentleman from Indiana 
[Mr. Roemer].
  Mr. ROEMER. Mr. Speaker, that moving speech by the gentleman from 
Minnesota is certainly one that is not going to be equaled for me to 
repeat, because I did not know Congressman Emerson in the same sense 
that Mr. Ramstad did. In this fast and furious pace, Members touch us 
in different ways. While I am not a member of the Missouri delegation, 
Mr. Emerson taught many of us by example a number of things. One was 
  Mr. Emerson was wheeled into this body about 2 weeks ago in his 
wheelchair with his oxygen on and I went over to say hello to him and 
asked if there was anything I could do. He removed the oxygen from his 
nose and he started to get up out of his wheelchair, and he said, 
``Tim, you make sure you go around telling all my colleagues and all my 
friends that I'm going to beat this thing. This wheelchair only helps 
me get back and forth from my office to the floor to cast my votes.''
  This place where Bill Emerson started as a page was not just the 
House of Representatives. It was like Bill Emerson's home. Bill Emerson 
taught me the lesson not just of courage in casting votes up until the 
end, he taught me about civility and about being kind, to Democrats and 
Republicans, and treating everybody the same here. My heart goes out to 
Jo Ann and the four daughters and I will thank Bill Emerson for the 
lessons that he taught me from farther away.
  Mr. CLAY. Mr. Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from 
Wisconsin [Mr. Gunderson].
  (Mr. GUNDERSON asked and was given permission to revise and extend 
his remarks.)
  Mr. GUNDERSON. Mr. Speaker, I join my friends from Missouri and thank 
them for giving all of our friends in the Congress and the friends of 
Bill Emerson a chance to say how much we loved and respected our 
  I had the privilege of coming to this Congress with Bill Emerson in 
1980. We sat next to each other on Pat Roberts' Agriculture Committee 
and we reminisced and we talked and we went through so much.
  The three things that I think come to mind: It is the courage, it is 
the basic decency, and it is the commitment to governing. The courage 
of commitment, the courage of the fight, the courage to be above it all 
and to be gracious in the most difficult of times.
  The basic decency. He was, as few have talked about here, the 
chairman of the Subcommittee on Nutrition. He was the one who said in 
the midst of all of this effort to reduce the budget, ``Let's not 
forget our commitment to the hungry and to those on food stamps.''
  It was his courage, I think, and his partnership with Pat Roberts 
that made sure that as we block-granted these programs, we kept a 
Federal commitment on the food stamps.
  And then the final issue is the basic commitment to governing. No one 
would ever call Bill Emerson a revolutionary, because Bill Emerson 
believed in this institution and he believed in this Government and he 
believed in this country. It was his goal to preserve them and to make 
them work and to make them something that all of us could be proud of.
  Ralph Waldo Emerson defined success as to laugh often and much; to 
win the respect of intelligent people and the affection of children; to 
earn the appreciation of honest critics and endure the betrayal of 
false friends; to enjoy beauty; to find the best in others; to leave 
the world a bit better place, whether by a healthy child, a garden 
patch, or a redeemed social condition.

                              {time}  1545

  To know that even one person has breathed easier because you have 
lived, is to succeed. Ralph Waldo Emerson did

[[Page H6785]]

not know it at the time, but he wrote the eulogy for our friend, Bill 
  Mr. CLAY. Mr. Speaker, I yield 2 minute to the gentleman from Ohio 
[Mr. Hall].
  Mr. HALL of Ohio. Mr. Speaker, I want to thank the gentleman from 
Missouri [Mr. Clay] for this resolution and a chance to get up and say 
something about our friend, Bill Emerson. He died Saturday night. I had 
the chance to visit with him Saturday morning at the hospital. It was 
very heard to see. It was excruciatingly hard to see how sick he really 
was, but there was peace about him in that room that in a way was a 
lovely thing to see. My heart goes out to him and his wife and his 
children, his mother. They loved him deeply. He was a great friend of 
so many of us, Republicans and Democrats alike. As a matter of fact, if 
he had any enemies, I would not know who they would be. He loved people 
and he cared for them deeply, both in his own district and in this 
country and overseas. He was a great humanitarian, and he had a wealth 
of knowledge about many subjects.
  He was kind of a historian, especially about Lincoln and about the 
history of this place. As a matter of fact, the last time I had a long 
talk with him, he was again in his hospital room getting chemotherapy, 
and I asked him to tell me about Lincoln. An hour and a half later he 
was still talking about Lincoln. He did not take a breath. It was 
fascinating, it was exciting to hear about Lincoln and hear things I 
had never heard before, and that is the kind of person he was. He was 
enjoyable to be with, fun to be with, and a great man.
  He is doing OK now. He is with his Lord. It is us that are really 
hurting. He was a great friend of all of us.
  Mr. CLAY. Mr. Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from 
Missouri [Mr. Talent].
  Mr. TALENT. Mr. Speaker, I thank my colleague for yielding me the 
time and for introducing this resolution commemorating the service and 
the life and times of our good friend, Bill Emerson.
  We have talked a lot about Bill's beliefs and his enthusiasm, his 
principles and his character. I speak from the perspective of one who 
regarded Bill Emerson not just as a friend and a colleague but as a 
mentor. From the moment I became involved in running for Congress, all 
through my service in the Congress, he was always available on a very 
practical level to help me; and he always did, and you knew you could 
trust him.
  Another great Missourian, Harry Truman, said one time, ``If you want 
a friend in Washington, buy a dog.'' Well, that was not true with 
regard to Bill Emerson. I look around at the people here on this floor 
and I know everybody regarded him as a friend and somebody that you 
could trust and confide in. I walked up to him in the Cloakroom one 
time. It was my first year here, and I was going through a bout of 
freshmanitis. I just felt like I was carrying the weight of the world 
around. I said, Bill, can I talk to you for a minute? He said sure. I 
said I am just so uptight. It is kind of vague anxiety. He says, 
``Well, what is it? What is wrong, Talent?'' I said, I just feel like 
it is hard for me to keep going day after day, there is so much going 
on that I do not understand. He said, ``What do you mean?'' He kept 
drawing me out. I finally said, it is like my neck is all tight. It is 
like I just cannot seem to move it. He said, ``Well, what you need, 
Talent, are neck exercises.'' He started moving his head back and 
forth, and then he started laughing and I started laughing. By the time 
we were finished, my depression was gone. He knew exactly what I 
needed. He looked right down into my soul and he gave me the help that 
I needed.
  He was a big fan, we have mentioned here, of Abe Lincoln. I do not 
know if anybody before I came talked about what a fan he was of Winston 
Churchill's. Winston Churchill said one time in a speech about Neville 
Chamberlain, and I think everybody in public life can relate to it, he 

       At the end of the day, history is going to judge what we 
     do, and we do not know what it is going to say. But at the 
     end of the day, at the end of a life, the only shield you 
     really have is the rectitude of your conscience.

  Mr. Speaker, by that shield, our friend Bill Emerson will do very 
well in the reckoning of history. He lived by his principles. He was 
faithful to his beliefs in his constituents. He fought the good fight. 
He finished the race. He kept the faith. It was a privilege to have 
known him.
  Mr. CLAY. Mr. Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from New 
York [Mr. McNulty].
  Mr. McNULTY. Mr. Speaker, I thank my good friend, the gentleman from 
Missouri, Bill Clay, for yielding me the time.
  Bill Emerson was one of my best friends, not just this Congress, but 
in life. When I first met him, it was not on the floor of the House of 
Representatives. It was not in Washington, DC. It was not even in this 
country. We were in the Horn of Africa and Bill was working with Mickey 
Leland and Gary Ackerman and others to try to see to it that the 
tragedy of 1988, when 250,000 people in Sudan died of starvation, did 
not recur. He was successful, along with Mickey, in that effort.
  He came to the House of Representatives as a page, and he loved this 
institution until the day of his death. He was an outstanding 
legislator, an expert on agricultural issues, a great family man, a man 
of deep religious conviction, and he was a great friend to all of his 
constituents, to all of his colleagues, and especially to the hungry 
and the homeless of the world and all of those who had special needs.
  I extend my deepest condolences to his wife Jo Ann, to his four 
children, to his lovely mother whom I had the opportunity to meet at 
the hospital last week, and I join with all of my colleagues in 
expressing the hope that our good friend Bill will continue to watch 
over all of us.
  Mr. CLAY. Mr. Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from 
California [Mr. Horn].
  Mr. HORN. Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentleman from Missouri [Mr. Clay] 
for yielding me the time.
  Mr. Speaker, all of us feel the loss of Bill Emerson because he was a 
friend to most of us and our condolences go out not only to his family, 
for which it is such a loss, but for the members of his constituency 
who could not have been better represented in this Chamber than he 
represented them. We all know Bill as a kindly person, a great sense of 
humor and a fine storyteller. He was a wise person.
  He was truly a man of the House. I recall when I joined the committee 
on which he served, besides Agriculture, then called the Committee on 
Public Works and Transportation, he took me in hand and showed me a lot 
of the ropes.
  Most of us have seen the photo which is in the Republican Cloakroom 
of a young page helping to carry Members off the floor who had been 
shot at and wounded. Bill was a hero as a page. He was a hero to all of 
us in his legislative craftsmanship, not only in Agriculture, in 
nutrition, but on our committee, now the Committee on Transportation 
and Infrastructure.
  It was first the Mineta-Emerson Act, and then the Emerson Act--the 
Natural Disaster Act, H.R. 1856. I hope that in his memory during this 
session or perhaps the coming session that we can bring that 
legislation to the floor and pass it in his name because that measure 
meant so much to him. He had the constituency, as many of us do, that 
had suffered from a number of major disasters, and he thought the 
Federal Government could do better.
  As has been said many times today, Bill Emerson believed in 
governing, and this craftsmanship was certainly a good example of it. 
So our condolences to all of his family and to all of his constituents. 
A great man has been taken from us.
  Mr. CLAY. Mr. Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the gentlewoman from 
North Carolina [Mrs. Clayton].
  Mrs. CLAYTON. Mr. Speaker, I want to thank the gentleman from 
Missouri [Mr. Clay] for organizing this resolution so all of us can 
  I did not know Bill Emerson as well as most but had the opportunity 
to work with him on agriculture, and I also had the opportunity to know 
one of this pet concerns; that is, feeding the hungry. We also worked 
on a number of issues. Bill Emerson was a man who cared about people 
deeply. I disagreed with Bill Emerson on some issues, but even in his 
disagreement, he taught us how to disagree with activity.

[[Page H6786]]

  He taught us how to have an advocacy for a position that differed 
from others, but yet respect. I was honored along with Bill Emerson on 
two different occasions, so we got to be friends about the issue of 
  We should celebrate the life of someone who deeply cared about 
people. We also should share and celebrate the life of someone who had 
very strong positions that differed with others, but he could be an 
advocate for those positions with a sense of civility and respect. He 
will leave us a standard for the rest of us to be good legislators, to 
be advocates for our position, but also to honor this position.
  His life brings honor to this House. If we could emulate that, we 
would honor the life that he has served.
  Mr. CLAY. Mr. Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from 
California [Mr. Hunter].
  Mr. HUNTER. Mr. Speaker, I thank my friend for yielding me the time 
and taking out this time to talk about Bill. Steve Horn just left and 
spoke about the picture. I would ask all colleagues who have not seen 
it to take a look at that picture of Bill Emerson carrying the 
stretcher on which resided a Congressman who was shot up in, I believe 
it was, the 1954 shooting in the House Chamber when several Members 
were hit.
  The picture of Bill Emerson in that picture, I think, is 
representative of what we saw in our association with him in the House 
as a Member of Congress, because there was Bill Emerson, the lead 
carrier on that stretcher. He was pointing out the direction in which 
they should go with that thing. As usual, he was big, he was fearless, 
he had a lot of courage. Just as he was in his career in Congress, he 
was right in the middle of things and that represented Bill.
  Bill was a real fighter, and when he took on a cause, whether he had 
two people on his side or a majority, it did not make any difference. 
He believed in the good fight and yet he was also very forgiving. He 
was forgiving to us, his colleagues, when we disagreed with him on 
issues. On a personal basis, he was very forgiving, too.
  We were sworn in in 1980, and as the Speaker knows, I was holding my 
son in my arms, little Dunk. Bill had his daughters on the floor. 
Incidentally, little Dunk held me in his arms the other day and would 
not put me down and it upset me. But Bill decided to buy firewood from 
the Hunter firewood organization. My boys would go up to the Blue Ridge 
Mountains with me. We would cut firewood, load it in a horse trailer 
and find victims, I mean customers, for that firewood in Washington, 
DC. I see the gentleman from Texas, Larry Combest, back here is one of 
our victim purchasers.
  I asked Bill after I delivered him about three loads of firewood, 
most of which daddy cut and the boys handled a little bit, but after I 
delivered that wood to him for several weeks and he had paid my sons, I 
asked him how it was burning. He said it is wonderful. He said, ``If 
you will just reimburse me for the gasoline I am having to put on it, 
everything will be fine, Hunter. But that represented Bill Emerson, big 
hearted, forgiving to his friends and all of his colleagues.
  The Founding Fathers, in putting together this great structure for a 
government, for a democracy, needed one important ingredient, and that 
was to have people in this Chamber who were compassionate, who had 
courage, and were forgiving and would relentlessly represent the ideas 
and the philosophies of their constituents. Bill Emerson was such a 
  Mr. CLAY. Mr. Speaker, I yield 1 minute to the gentleman from Georgia 
[Mr. Bishop].
  Mr. BISHOP. Mr. Speaker, it is a real sad time for me to have to 
reflect on the life of Bill Emerson, but Bill is the kind of person I 
think that I will never, ever forget. If there has ever been a person 
who represents what is stated in the 25th chapter of Matthew:

       When I was hungry, you gave me meat. When I was thirsty, 
     you gave me drink. When I was naked, you gave me clothing. 
     When I was in prison, you came unto me. When I was sick, you 
     ministered to me.

  Bill Emerson was such a person.
  Bill Emerson was bipartisan. He was a leader. He was my subcommittee 
chairman on the Subcommittee on Department Operations, Nutrition, and 
Foreign Agriculture. He gave me the assurances that everything would be 
all right when we were worried about those people that were hungry and 
what would happen to them in this Congress.


  He gave me the assurance that it would be OK, and I am happy that 
Bill Emerson was there. I am happy that Bill Emerson was subcommittee 
chairman, and I am just happy to have been able to call Bill Emerson my 
friend and my leader.
  Mr. CLAY. Mr. Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from 
California [Mr. McKeon].
  Mr. McKEON. Mr. Speaker, I want to thank the gentleman from Missouri, 
Mr. Clay, for yielding this time to me and also for setting up this 
effort on behalf of Mr. Emerson.
  It seems like we spend a lot of time on this floor berating each 
other and talking down the institution of Congress. I think it is 
wonderful that we are able to spend a little time now remembering some 
of the good things that happen here, and especially I think it has been 
interesting to me to sit here and listen to the many good things said 
about Mr. Emerson.
  He has been a real inspiration to me. I think he has been to many of 
us, and that is why so many of us are here on the floor today. I kind 
of thought that I had a special relationship with him, and so many of 
my colleagues have talked about instances that they had with him. I do 
not know how he was able to spread himself around so much.
  I first saw him when he fought hard against our leadership last year 
to preserve the task force on hunger. As the gentleman from California 
[Mr. Hunter] said, there were times that he fought if he only had two 
on his side. I think he was alone at that time., and he fought very 
hard because he believed in helping the underdog, those who needed 
  Later I had the opportunity of serving on the task force on disaster 
that was set up by the Speaker, and he and the gentleman from Illinois 
[Mr. Durbin] headed up that task force. In serving with him on that, I 
had the opportunity to go to his office, and it is full of memorabilia. 
If Members have not visited his office, they should go do it. He has 
the picture there of him and the gentleman from Pennsylvania [Mr. 
Kanjorski] when they were helping carry the Congressmen out of here 
when they served as pages.
  He also served here as a staff member and then served as a Member of 
the House. And he loved the House and he loved each of the Members of 
the House and he loved all his constituents and his family. He had a 
great capacity for love.
  When we had our kickoff for the 104th Congress, I had the opportunity 
of setting up some of the day's activities, and the first thing we 
started with was the prayer service in the morning. I asked him if he 
would head that up and he did a fantastic job. He did not suffer from 
ego. He was just here to serve, and it was just a wonderful thing to 
work with him.
  I think the thing that hit me the most about Bill Emerson was the 
last few months here when he was fighting this illness, and every time 
I have talked to him he has been an encouragement to me. He did not 
talk about his suffering. I know he was going through great pain, but 
he always had a big smile and always was uplifting. Fantastic. Reminds 
me of the words of John Donne:

       No man is an island. No man stands alone. Each man's joy is 
     joy to me. Each man's grief is my own. We need one another, 
     so I will defend each man as my brother, each man as my 

  He was a great friend. He epitomized those words. We will miss him 
greatly, but I will always remember Bill Emerson.
  MR. CLAY. Mr. Speaker, I yield 1 minute to the gentlewoman from 
Michigan [Miss Collins].
  Miss COLLINS of Michigan. Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentleman for 
yielding me this time. Bill Emerson was a friend of mine with strength, 
his compassion and his dedication to the ideals of America.
  I met Bill on a CODEL to Somalia, where we both flew into a small 
town to witness the hunger and the lines of women and children to get 
nourishment. I did not know that Bill Emerson was a Republican because 
he was

[[Page H6787]]

not the kind of person who was Republican or who was Democrat; he was 
an American.
  In spite of all his trials and tribulations, he still found time to 
give me words of encouragement, and I would like to share those words 
with my colleagues because, to me, they personify the strength of Bill 
  He said, ``Barbara Rose, you must be strong to persevere and resolute 
to overcome.'' And he repeated that to me three times. ``You must be 
strong to persevere and resolute to overcome.''
  I will never forget those words of encouragement and I think that 
those words describe Bill Emerson and his work in the House. A good 
friend to America.
  Mr. CLAY. Mr. Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from 
Louisiana [Mr. Livingston].
  (Mr. LIVINGSTON asked and was given permission to revise and extend 
his remarks.)
  Mr. LIVINGSTON. Mr. Speaker, I thank my friend for yielding me this 
time, and I rise in tribute to a great guy and a good friend, Bill 
Emerson, the third of my friends to pass away in the last 2 months, all 
under 58 years of age.
  We would all like to think we can make a difference in this world 
when we go. Bill Emerson can certainly say he made a difference, 
whether as a page with the gentleman from Pennsylvania, Paul Kanjorski, 
when this place was shot up, as memorialized in the photograph that has 
been mentioned earlier, or as a graduate of Westminster College, where 
earlier Winston Churchill gave his famous Iron Curtain speech; whether 
through his efforts to travel to Africa and elsewhere to exhibit his 
concern for the hungry and the needy, to try to feed those who were 
most in need; whether through his dedicated and devoted representation 
of his constituents, or his guidance and oversight of the Mississippi 
watershed, taking trips to New Orleans with the wonderful people along 
the Mississippi River, go down there and try to make sure that those 
who needed flood protection were able to have that protection from the 
devastation of floods, and at the same time to partake of a little bit 
of New Orleans jazz and seafood, which he deeply loved and enjoyed with 
his wife Jo Ann.
  In fact, he will be remembered for the love that he bore for his wife 
Jo Ann and his four daughters. Bill Emerson, in fact, did make a 
difference. He was a good man and we will all remember him fondly, and 
we wish his family well.
  Mr. CLAY. Mr. Speaker, I yield 3 minutes to the gentleman from 
Kansas, [Mr. Roberts].
  Mr. ROBERTS. Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentleman for yielding me this 
time and for his effort and leadership. As has been indicated many 
times, there is a picture of Bill Emerson when he was a page in the 
Republican cloakroom leading the way in regards to assisting the 
wounded Members that were shot back in 1955, and he has been leading 
the way ever since.
  We have had a virtual outpouring of affection and love for Bill here 
on the floor, as was the case a week ago Wednesday when the Jefferson 
Island Club, made up of many Members on both sides, named Bill their 
man of the year.
  I think the word that really applies to Bill more than anything else 
is courage. I know the gentleman from California [Mr. Hunter] and 
myself were there when he took that very courageous step to go to the 
Betty Ford Center, and he has been such a leader and has exhibited even 
more courage in such a manner to those, as expressed by the gentleman 
from Minnesota [Mr. Ramstad].
  Bill was a back rail troop, as has been indicated by the gentleman 
from Missouri, Mr. Volkmer, and the gentleman from Missouri, Mr. 
Talent, and others. He would be back there as of today probably saying 
this is going on a little too much. In that regard, we had many 
discussions about Eisenhower and Taft and Lincoln and politics and 
Kansas and Missouri and family and everything else.
  We are family in the House Committee on Agriculture, and we said this 
as of last Monday, ``We suffered a deep loss both professionally and 
personally at the passing of our dear friend and colleague, Bill 
  From a personal standpoint, we came to Congress together back in 
1981. We have served side-by-side on the Committee on Agriculture ever 
since. Four farm bills, countless legislative battles, he has been a 
unique champion for farmers and ranchers.
  The gentleman from Texas [Mr. de la Garza] the distinguished chairman 
emeritus of the Committee on Agriculture, has a statement as well, but 
I think it is interesting that at 1:30 in the morning when we finally 
finished the farm bill, Bill did not comment on some of the amendments, 
he did not comment on the farm bill, but when it came time to pay 
tribute to Mr. de la Garza, the longest serving chairman of the 
Committee on Agriculture, Bill got up, and even though he was sick and 
had lost his voice, he paid tribute to Kika It was at that time that I 
turned and said, Bill Emerson, we love you.

  Something has already been said about his motto for living. It was 
only a week ago Thursday he was sitting right over there looking very 
much like Winston Churchill, and he was in the process of making all 
those votes, and he got this quorum call card and he gave it to me, and 
as has been said before, he wrote on it, ``Roberts, I want you to be 
strong to endure and resolute to overcome.'' How many Members did he 
say that to? It is what the Prince of Wales said to the troops prior to 
World War I, and I have kept it. I have kept it ever since and I will 
keep it.
  My colleagues, Helen Steiner Rice said this on such occasions.

       When I must leave you for a little while, please go on 
     bravely with a gallant smile. And for my sake and in my name, 
     live on and do all things the same. Spend not your life in 
     empty days, but fill each waking hour in useful ways. Reach 
     out your hand in comfort and in cheer, and I in turn will 
     comfort you and hold you near.

  That is Bill Emerson. God bless you, Bill, and we miss you.
  Mr. CLAY. Mr. Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from 
Virginia [Mr. Moran].
  Mr. MORAN. Mr. Speaker, the last image that we have of Bill is one of 
courage and strength, an oxygen tube in his mouth, confined to a 
wheelchair. But the Bill Emerson that will live on in our minds and our 
hearts is a gregarious man, just full of energy and goodness and pride 
that he was part of this institution.
  I had the privilege of representing Bill and Jo Ann and their four 
daughters at their home-away-from-home in McLean, VA. In fact, I had a 
wonderful day one day when his daughter Tori shadowed me for the full 
day. And I will never forget when Bill joined us for lunch of seeing 
the pride in his eyes as he looked at his daughter, so beautiful, so 
bright, so accomplished, and he knew that this was largely because of 
his investment of time and caring and love in her and the rest of his 
  He lives on in that family, as he does in this body. He invested so 
much of himself in making this the kind of legislative organization 
that is the pride of Western civilization. he spent most of his life 
here. He loved this body. He loved its Members and we loved him.
  Mr. CLAY. Mr. Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from 
Arizona [Mr. Kolbe].
  Mr. KOLBE. Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentleman for yielding me this 
time and for introducing this resolution.
  I join with my colleagues in sending our condolences and love to Jo 
Ann and the entire Emerson family. Much has been said here today about 
the selfless individual that served among us as the Representative from 
Missouri. There are two things I would just like to remember with my 
colleagues about him that stand out for me.
  Eight months ago, when we were considering whether or not we should 
continue the Select Committee on Hunger, Bill Emerson asked me to go to 
lunch with him and a couple of staff people. He wanted to talk about 
this, just one-on-one, to talk about the passion he felt for that 
select committee and the work that it was doing.
  I did not have to ask him, ``Bill, why are you doing this; what is in 
it for you?'' I knew there was nothing in it for him, but I knew how 
much he believed in it; that he took the time to meet with Members one 
by one to talk to them about this.

                              {time}  1615

  The other thing was his service as chairman of the page board. I had 

[[Page H6788]]

privilege these last 2 years of serving with him on the page board. 
Like him, I started here as a page, though in the other body. Like him, 
I loved this institution of Congress. Bill Emerson loved the 
institution of Congress that he started serving at such a young age, 
but he also loved the pages. He loved the young people that worked in 
that program. He took the time to talk to them. He took the time to 
understand what the program was about and how important it was.
  Just 3 weeks ago when the group of pages that had served us for this 
last year left, he came to the floor. He wanted so much to lead the 
tribute to the pages, but he was taking oxygen, he was in a wheelchair. 
And he said: Jim, would you take this 5-minute special order to do 
this? He said: I really want to do it, but I just cannot.
  But he stayed here on the floor. He listened to what was being said 
because he really cared about it, and he put his remarks in the Record 
so that they would appear there. Bill ended his life as he lived it, 
with courage, with love, and with caring. Sometimes we have to have a 
sad event like this to remind us that this body is not about 
Republicans or Democrats, conservatives or liberals, urban or rural, 
northerners, southerners. It is about people, flesh and blood who love 
and laugh and cry and hope and grieve.

  Bill's life demonstrated that, and his leaving reminds us of it.
  Mr. CLAY. Mr. Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from Texas 
[Mr. de la Garza].
  Mr. de la GARZA. Speaker, I thank the chairman for yielding me this 
  Mr. Speaker, I join in the sadness of the loss of Bill Emerson, and I 
join my colleagues in the joy of celebrating his life and all that he 
did. As a Member of Congress, as a citizen, as a husband, as a father, 
as a friend, I had the fortunate opportunity to serve with him in the 
committee, to work on many of his endeavors, to share with him the zest 
for the underprivileged, for the hungry, not only here but around the 
  He dedicated his effort and his life, but for the grace of God, he 
was not on the plane with Micky Leland. He traveled to all of the 
corners of the world where most Members do not go. He traveled to where 
there was hunger, to where there was famine, to where there was a 
problem. We had a very pleasant relationship because I never could 
spell, and I do not think that I can spell now Cape Girardeau, so that 
was a constant thing with us.
  As we recalled some of the personal relationships, my wife made me a 
present of a beautiful tie with continental type drums. The day that I 
wore it with great pride, he came straight to it and said, that is a 
beautiful tie, about three times. That evening I told my wife, I said: 
Do you know who liked your tie? Bill Emerson. Can we get him one. She 
said: I got this in New York someplace. It was the last one. I do not 
know if we can. And I said: Well, if you do not mind, I am going to 
give it to him. And she said: Well, I think it would be nice.
  We already knew that he had this ailment. So the next day I gave him 
the tie. May you wear it in good health. That afternoon he was on the 
floor showing me the tie. Those are the things that we will remember.
  What we cannot forget is that we cannot say all these things about 
Bill Emerson today and forget him tomorrow. We need to dedicate our 
lives, our service here to that which was his first interest, beyond 
his family, beyond his country, were those that needed nutrition, the 
hungry of the world, the hungry of our country.
  I hope that we as a House and we as individuals dedicate ourselves 
and remember Bill Emerson when we work, not necessarily on the budget 
or the priorities but that there are people hungry who need to be fed. 
That is what his purpose in life turned out to be. I hope we honor 
  I thank the gentleman from Missouri [Mr. Clay] for allowing me the 
  Mr. CLAY. Mr. Speaker, I yield 1 minute to the gentleman from Florida 
[Mr. McCollum].
  (Mr. McCollum asked and was given permission to revise and extend his 
  Mr. McCOLLUM. Mr. Speaker, Bill Emerson and I came to Congress 
together in 1980. We were in a great class of Congressmen. We were fast 
friends over a long period of time. I ran a number of leadership races. 
He supported me in every one of those, very committed through thick and 
thin, even those where I did not do so well.
  I can remember on projects the hours he would spend actually making 
those telephone calls personally or rounding up whatever votes either 
for leadership or for a bill on the floor where necessary. Whenever 
Bill Emerson made a commitment, he lived up to those commitments.
  I remember a few years ago he made a tough decision that he consulted 
with me on more than one occasion about whether he should run again for 
Congress. He thought about retiring. I encouraged him strongly to 
continue. I knew his love for this institution, and I knew what he gave 
to his country and what it meant to all of us. He made the right 
decision to stay. In fact, it was not too many days ago that he 
reminded me of that and told me so. I was pleased that I was party to 
helping make that decision.
  I also know that he had friends elsewhere. He was involved with the 
Interparliamentary Group with some of us with the German Parliament, 
the Bundestag. Just about 10 days ago I was reminded of that by a 
friend in that group from over in Germany where we spent a week 
together a year ago who asked me to be remembered to him, and I did 
that here on the floor of this House. Bill Emerson was my friend. I 
wish him well. If there is a heaven, he is there.
  Mr. CLAY. Mr. Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from 
Mississippi [Mr. Montgomery].
  Mr. MONTGOMERY. Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentleman for yielding me 
this time.
  Bill Emerson never gave up that he would not whip his cancer. That is 
the way he was in life. If he had a strong matter he was interested in, 
he would try and try.
  He felt so much love for his wife Jo Ann and his family. Really, he 
knew that the good Lord would protect him and take Bill home when the 
Lord was ready for Bill.
  At the House prayer breakfast every Thursday morning, we saw him 
gradually get weaker and weaker. He missed a few times, when he was 
taking chemo, from the prayer breakfast. he would call one of us the 
day before: ``I will not be at the prayer breakfast today but just 
think about me.'' Then we saw him come with a breathing apparatus, but 
he kept coming. Then soon he was coming in a wheelchair to the prayer 
breakfast but he kept coming.
  As has been said here today, Bill Emerson was one of the most beloved 
Members of the Congress. He was such a part of this House.
  Now, Bill, you will be buried in the rolling hills of Missouri on 
Thursday. And as someone said earlier, if there is a haven, there is a 
heaven and Bill is looking down on us today.
  Mr. CLAY. Mr. Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from New 
York [Mr. Gilman].
  (Mr. GILMAN asked and was given permission to revise and extend his 
  Mr. GILMAN. Mr. Speaker, it is with genuine shock and sadness that I 
rise to join our colleagues in memorializing the passage of and 
honoring an outstanding Member of this body, Bill Emerson of Missouri. 
We have all been aware for some time that Bill was grievously ill. 
However, this did not lessen the shock of his passing.
  We all recall how he remained courageously active until the very end 
and, in fact, did not miss any rollcall votes, even though in a 
wheelchair just until a week before his passing. Bill Emerson loved 
this institution from the time he served as a page until the present 
days. He was beloved back in his home district, the Eight of Missouri, 
and he served on the Agriculture and Transportation and Infrastructure 
Committees of the House. His dedication on both of those committees 
earned him the respect of his colleagues on both sides of the aisle.
  In addition, Bill was a productive member of the Joint Committee on 
the Organization of the Congress and in may ways the reforms adopted by 
this House are a living memorial to Bill Emerson. He was a 28-year 
veteran of the Air Force Reserves and his dedication to the needs of 
our veterans and our Nation is well known.

[[Page H6789]]

  Bill leaves behind his widow Jo Ann and their four beautiful 
children. Hopefully Jo Ann and the children may receive some small 
solace from the knowledge that many share their loss, both here in the 
Congress and at home in Missouri.
  Mr. Speaker, I shall never forget the efforts Bill Emerson made to 
enhance the work of our Select Committee on Hunger a few years ago. As 
a member of our Hunger Select Committee, he became one of our more 
energetic, productive, and dedicated members. We shall all miss Bill 
Emerson. His shoes will be difficult to fill.
  Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentleman for yielding time to me.
  Mr. CLAY. Mr. Speaker, may I inquire as to how much time remains?
  The SPEAKER pro tempore (Mr. Dreier). The gentleman from Missouri 
[Mr. Clay] has 6\1/2\ minutes remaining.
  Mr. CLAY. Mr. Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the gentlewoman from New 
Jersey [Mrs. Roukema].
  Mrs. ROUKEMA. Mr. Speaker, I thank our colleague, Bill Clay for this 
opportunity to give testimony to our friendship and the admiration that 
we have for our departed friend, Bill Emerson.
  I came to Congress with Bill Emerson in the same class, but it was 
not that alone that drew us together. A few short years later Bob 
Michel appointed us to the Select Committee on Hunger, I, as the 
ranking member. and Bill as my strong right arm. And I will tell you, 
it was not long after that that Micky Leland brought us to Ethiopia at 
the height of the worst famine in history ravaging the country and it 
was also war torn and enduring a civil war. I will tell Members, once 
you go to Ethiopia together, you are bonded in friendship forever. It 
was an extraordinary character-building experience.
  We saw children, women, and men dying in the streets from starvation. 
And Bill and I determined then that we would be in a partnership 
forever to help wherever that help was needed. I must tell you, even 
this year, when it came to food stamps and the school lunch program, 
and maintaining the agriculture nutrition standards, we always knew 
that Bill Emerson was there. No children would go hungry while Bill 
Emerson was on the job.
  I must agree with what Mr. de la Garza has stated. We in this 
Congress must continue that dedication in Bill's memory. No child 
should go hungry on our watch.
  To his daughters, Liz and Abigail, with whom my daughter Meg went to 
school back in Ridgewood, NJ, I want to say to Liz and Abigail, cherish 
the memory of your wonderful father and always remember the hope, the 
faith, the dedication, and the valor that he brought not only to life 
but to his death.
  Mr. CLAY. Mr. Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the gentlewoman from 
Maryland [Mrs. Morella].
  Mrs. MORELLA. Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentleman for yielding the 
time to me.
  Bill Emerson, we will miss you and yet your influence will continue 
to inspire all of us.
  Bill Emerson was a man of commitment, compassion, civility, and 
courage. What an example he set for us. He was fair-minded, bipartisan 
and, as Members have attested, he never did complain. The House and 
Congress was his life, from the time he was a high school student and 
was a page here, and then as he worked for someone who became my 
mentor, Senator Mac Mathias, which is when I first met Bill Emerson 
many years ago.
  Bill then was elected in 1979 to Congress himself. And he then 
married into a family that are very close to me. His father-in-law is 
the late Ab Hermann, who became a political sage of mine. His mother-
in-law, Sylvia Hermann, continues to be a leader in Montgomery County, 
MD. He married a beautiful Jo Ann Hermann and has raised four wonderful 
children who have all been inspired by their mother and indeed by their 
  He is a man who cared very much about the community. We know how he 
cared about the fact that people needed to be nourished, to be 
nourished in many ways, spiritually as well as physically nourished, 
and he was there. He does inspire us.
  I am reminded of, as Bill Emerson leaves, the Tin Man in the Wizard 
of Oz. The Tin Man was looking for a heart. When he meets the Wizard, 
he says, ``Now I know I have a heart, because it is broken.'' And the 
hearts of all of us in this House and in this Chamber are broken.

                              {time}  1630

  Mr. CLAY. Mr. Speaker, I yield 1\1/2\ minutes to the gentleman from 
Kentucky [Mr. Rogers].
  Mr. ROGERS. Mr. Speaker, the wound of this loss is so fresh for all 
of us that it is difficult to place into words the kind of love and 
respect and admiration that we held for our friend, and truly Bill 
Emerson was a personal friend. He was not just a friend, he was a 
personal friend to all of us.
  Mr. Speaker, it is rare that we will find this many Members of 
Congress from both sides of the aisle that would take the time and feel 
compelled to come here and say these words, whatever we say, to our 
friend, Bill, and yet that was the kind of magnetism that this 
personality, this loving, kind person, held for all of us.
  There was always something personal that he would find between 
himself and another person that bound them together. He and I came here 
together. He always bragged that he was one day younger than me, born 
just the next day after I was, and that was his way of forming that 
friendship. All of my colleagues had some kind of connection in that 
respect with Bill.
  And yet it was much more than that because Bill Emerson, as has been 
said here, was a patriot. He loved history, was a great student of 
history and felt extremely and highly honored that he was serving in 
this body because it represented, so much, the history of our Nation 
and his participation in it.
  As has been said many times here today, Bill Emerson loved this 
House. As my colleagues know, it is fashionable these days, it seems, 
for many of our Members to be critical of the House, hoping, I guess, 
to find some sort of sympathy from the public in criticizing this body. 
But you never heard that from Bill Emerson. We only heard respect and 
love for this body.
  His greatest achievement in life, outside his family, I think, was 
presiding there in that chair, and he did it so wonderfully well, none 
better, and I always picture Bill Emerson sitting in the Speaker's 
chair because I think that was the height of his professional life in 
his own mind.
  It has been said that duty makes us do things well, but love makes us 
do them beautifully, and, Bill Emerson, you made things so beautiful.
  Mr. CLAY. Mr. Speaker, I yield 1 minute to the gentleman from 
Illinois [Mr. Ewing].
  Mr. EWING. Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentleman for yielding this time 
to me, and I thank him for bringing this resolution today, and I send 
my condolences to the family of Bill Emerson.
  I came here in a special election, so friendship is very important, 
and Bill Emerson showed me that friendship. I came here, and I was 
invited to the prayer breakfast by Bill Emerson, and it became a very 
important part of my existence here in this Capitol. I come here today 
because I need to express my grief and my loss for this friend, and I 
say to all of my colleagues.
  Let us look at what Bill Emerson has given to us. He has shown us the 
way, love of country, love of family, love of each other, and finally 
he had such a deep love for his God that I know he is in good hands, 
and we should learn from his lessons.
  Mr. CLAY. Mr. Speaker, I yield back the balance of my time.
  Mr. SKELTON. Mr. Speaker, I ask that we continue for 1 hour and that 
I control the remainder of the time.
  The SPEAKER pro tempore (Mr. Dreier). The gentleman from Missouri 
[Mr. Skelton] is recognized for 1 hour.
  Mr. SKELTON. Mr. Speaker, I yield 1 minute to the gentleman from 
North Carolina [Mr. Hefner].
  (Mr. HEFNER asked and was given permission to revise and extend his 
  Mr. HEFNER. Mr. Speaker, I was a real admirer of Bill Emerson, and 
there was an old former gospel singer I just happened to draw upon 
memory from, a gospel song writer from Missouri, Albert E. Bromley, who 
is one of the greatest gospel song writers in the world, and I think 
this just fits Bill Emerson, and the words go something like this:

       I'll meet you in the morning with a how do you do, and 
     we'll sit down by the river and

[[Page H6790]]

     with rapture our acquaintance renew, and you're going to know 
     me in the morning by the smile that I wear, when I meet you 
     in the morning in the city that is built four square.

  If anybody is going to make it, Bill Emerson is going to make it. He 
was one of the finest men that I have met, ever met, in this body, and 
he, and Bill Natcher, and men of that statute are going to make making 
it to Heaven worthwhile working for and something to look forward to.
  And, Bill Emerson, we are going to miss you more than you will ever 
  Mr. SKELTON. Mr. Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from 
Michigan [Mr. Smith].
  Mr. SMITH of Michigan. Mr. Speaker, our hearts and our prayers go to 
Bill's wife and daughter, certainly to all of his constituents, as well 
as his good friends.
  Bill was my big brother when I came into Congress in 1993, and he 
just contributed so much time and so many hours in helping me learn how 
to adjust to Washington and to Congress.
  So I wanted to be part of, if my colleagues will, this honor guard, 
thanking Bill again for all that he has done for many of us, certainly 
all that he did for me personally. Bill was a friend.
  I served with Bill on the Committee on Agriculture. I mean his 
dedication, his willingness to study and learn and work with both 
Republicans and Democrats is not only to be admired, it is to be a good 
lesson for all of us.
  Bill Emerson was a great American.
  Bill, we hope you continue to guide us, and our prayers are with you.
  Mr. SKELTON. Mr. Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from 
Tennessee [Mr. Bryant].
  Mr. BRYANT of Tennessee. Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentleman from 
Missouri [Mr. Skelton] for yielding time to me.
  As a new Member of this body, it is wonderful just to sit here and 
listen to the more senior Members who have known Bill Emerson longer 
than I have come before this body and lift up praises to him for the 
outstanding, not only the outstanding work that he did while he was in 
Congress and the outstanding family man that he was, but just the type 
of person; all those wonderful characteristics that we all look up to, 
that we all want to emulate, and I can verify from the 18 months that I 
knew Bill Emerson that he certainly was that type of person and 
certainly led by example. I know when I was selected to join the 
Committee on Agriculture, he was one of the first folks I sought out, 
and he gave me wonderful advice and counsel throughout the entire time.
  I also had the special occasion to go to Missouri with him one time 
and attend a hearing that he was conducting, and I know for a fact that 
Bill Emerson loved his district, he loved it very strongly. He stood 
very strongly for he was a man of commitment for that district, and I 
know during the 18 months that I was here he displayed it very 
strongly. But having the occasion to go to Missouri and visit people 
there, I know that Missouri loved Bill Emerson.
  Bill was a wonderful congressman, a wonderful man, a wonderful 
father, a wonderful husband, a wonderful role model to many of us in 
Congress, and I know that he has gone on to better things, and I know 
that we are certainly going to miss him, I know that Missouri is 
certainly going to miss his presence here in Congress, and all we can 
do at this point is just add our appreciation to his family for what he 
did and continue to lift up his family in prayer because these are 
difficult circumstances, and I know all those Members here would agree 
with me on that, and we will continue to hold his family at this 
special time of their bereavement.
  Mr. SKELTON. Mr. Speaker, I will yield 2 minutes to the gentleman 
from West Virginia [Mr. Rahall].
  Mr. RAHALL. Mr. Speaker, it was a young but brave Bill Emerson who as 
a page helped move the mortally wounded Members of this body from the 
floor on a stretcher after a terrorist assassination attempt. Even as a 
teenager Bill Emerson saw his duty, and he did it without any thought 
for his own safety.
  Bill Emerson and I had many things in common, our careers paralleling 
one another, we both worked here in Washington before returning home at 
young ages and being elected as Members of this body. Bill's personal 
office and staff is located next to mine in the Rayburn Building. Our 
families were neighbors in McLean, VA, and we were neighbors and 
colleagues on the House Transportation and Infrastructure Committee. 
Only four doors down from my family in McLean were Bill Emerson, his 
wife Jo Ann and his four children. Our children attended school 
together, were often found in each other's homes, and participated in 
school and church activities together. Bill was a devoted family member 
and a devoted church member.
  I know that my daughter Suzanne will never forget the times when 
Bill's daughter, Tori, and later Katherine, who we later called, 
``Kat,'' would babysit. They loved having each other over, spending the 
night together, doing their home work together, baking cookies 
  I recall one instance when we noted in the neighborhood a large truck 
outside of Bill and Jo Ann's home. It was a huge delivery truck, and 
they had just unloaded hundreds of cartons in front of Bill's driveway. 
So we strolled over to see what was going on. Could not imagine what 
was being delivered to their home.
  ``These are my books,'' Bill said very proudly with a sense of 
  ``Where on earth will you put them all,'' we asked him.
  His wife Jo Ann laughed and said, ``That's a good question.''
  The cartons went inside, and Jo Ann and Bill found a space for quite 
a library of their beloved history books.
  So, Bill was not only a great team player here in this body, he was a 
great team player in his neighborhood. Theirs was a close-knit family. 
Their strength, their hopes, their faith over these past months as Bill 
struggled to ``beat this thing,'' as he put it, never faltered.
  Bill, his wife Jo Ann and his four daughters are a source of love and 
stability for each other throughout this ordeal, but amazingly they 
took time to reassure and give strength to their neighbors as well, 
showing their deep and abiding Christian faith at all times.
  So as we say goodbye, for a short time anyway, to our friend Bill 
Emerson, we say it to a very honored, respected, and beloved friend of 
all of us, and while he is gone from us for a short time, he will live 
on through his wife Jo Ann and his four daughters and his mother, but 
more, he will live on through all of us in this body who had the great 
good luck and good fortune to have known Bill Emerson and to have 
served with him.
  MR. SKELTON. Mr. Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from 
Georgia [Mr. Lewis].
  Mr. LEWIS of Georgia. Mr. Speaker, I rise to pay tribute and honor to 
the memory of a good man, a special man, Congressman Bill Emerson. Bill 
was a good Congressman, a good friend and more than anything else a 
good human being. He was a man who truly cared about his fellow man, 
here at home and across the world. Bill Emerson was a gentle man.
  In 1992 I had the great privilege of cochairing a congressional 
delegation to Somalia with Bill. It was a dangerous trip. Somalia was 
still filled with gangs of armed warlords and we had to wear flak 
jackets as we drove through the streets. But Bill Emerson was committed 
to the starving people of Somalia. He put their health and their 
welfare above his own personal security. that was the kind of man Bill 
Emerson was.
  Bill had a warm, caring and sharing spirit. His sense of humor was 
able to overcome any situation, to break down any barrier.
  I will miss Bill Emerson. I will miss his wit and his wisdom. I will 
miss his caring and his compassion. More than anything else I will miss 
his companionship. Bill Emerson was my friend and I will miss him, as 
we all will, greatly.
  My condolences and my love go out to Bill's family and friends.

                              {time}  1645

  Mr. SKELTON. Mr. Speaker, I yield 3 minutes to the gentleman from 
West Virginia [Mr. Wise].
  Mr. WISE. Mr. Speaker, to those watching this debate, whether by 
television or in the gallery or wherever,

[[Page H6791]]

 think it is obvious that they can see that this is not just an 
ordinary Member, this is an extraordinary Member that is being 
remembered here today; not in a flashy, necessarily charismatic sense, 
but as a solid, stable, and caring legislator who touched so many of us 
in so many different ways. He was a Member in the finest way, not a 
Democrat and not a Republican, necessarily, but a solid Member.
  He brought me, as he brought so many of you, into a new experience. 
Bill recruited me to join with him when he was chair of the 
Congressional Study Group in Germany. He sort of brought me up through 
the ranks and made sure I was ready to handle the responsibilities. He 
made me the vice chair and this year, the chair. I got to visit Bill's 
district. A lot of us are used to visiting Members' districts with 
Members. I got to see Bill's district without Bill being present, 
because at the time that the Congressional Study Group on Germany was 
holding its meeting, and it was holding it in Cape Girardeau, Bill was 
not able to be there because of his chemo treatment. He hated that. He 
had arranged the whole trip. He wanted very much to be with the group. 
He had been with it for many years. It was being held in his district. 
He could not be there. Yet he carried on, his staff carried on 

  I got to then represent Bill, so I saw firsthand the love and respect 
and caring that his constituents had. Of course, Bill checked in daily 
and did a phone conference with us. He wanted to make sure everything 
was running fine. We hear a lot about Republicans and we hear a lot 
about Democrats. I understand why Bill always won so handily, because I 
got to meet another party: Emercrats. These were folks who were voting 
for Bill, no matter what happened. I got to meet a lot of them, too.
  One of the memories that I have most about that several-day visit was 
that at the end of it there was a function that Bill had arranged for 
the visiting German parliamentarians in a large hall. It was to be a 
reception and dinner with a lot of citizens in that area. They knew 
Bill was not going to be there. Bill had been very open about that. 
They still came. They came out and packed that hall. They came out for 
Bill Emerson, because they knew that is what Bill wanted to do. Of 
course, every one of them was asking how Bill was doing.
  If we could all live our lives as openly as Bill lived his, whether 
here on the House floor, fighting every day his fight against cancer, 
not asking for any sympathy, but just being here, and that being a 
message in itself; the struggles that he has fought openly. His 
constituents knew him and they loved him. They lived with him, they 
suffered with him, and they prayed with him.
  Mr. Speaker, we all live through our children. As we all seek some 
balm for Bill's death, the balm that there is that Bill left four 
wonderful children that he talked about with me, as I know he talked 
about with you. But to Jo Ann and his four daughters, Bill lives 
through you, and for that we are all very lucky.
  Mr. SKELTON. Mr. Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from 
American Samoa [Mr. Faleomavaega].
  (Mr. FALEOMAVAEGA asked and was given permission to revise and extend 
his remarks.)
  Mr. FALEOMAVAEGA. Mr. Speaker, this is not a happy occasion for me to 
be standing here before my colleagues and to pay a special tribute to 
the late Congressman Bill Emerson from the State of Missouri.
  Bill Emerson, I think, can adequately be described as stubborn as 
those Missouri mules, as I understand it, but Bill Emerson also had a 
heart. He had a heart full of compassion, and one of real appreciation 
for the needs of America's elderly and the poor and the hungry.
  It was my privilege to serve as a member of the Select Committee on 
Hunger, where Bill Emerson was also one of the senior members of the 
committee. The occasions that I have had in having hearings with him 
and to listen to this man, I certainly have respected him very highly 
for his opinions about the needs of America's hungry.
  It was also my privilege, Mr. Speaker, to attend or to be a member of 
the delegation that went to Somalia, as it was cochaired by the 
gentleman from Georgia [Mr. Lewis]. Bill Emerson was a member of that 
delegation. It was not until that trip that I felt the real sense of 
compassion that this man had for those who are really in need.
  As my good friend, the gentleman from Georgia, indicated earlier, we 
had to wear jackets for our safety because of the dangerous situation 
that the people of Somalia were confronted with at that time. Bill 
Emerson was there because he had compassion. I believe personally that 
it was because of his strong convictions that he was able and was one 
of the forces which led President Bush to send the troops that were 
needed from the resources that America had, that he wanted for 
humanitarian reasons to help the needs of that nation.
  Bill Emerson was a dear friend because he helped me, and I am sure 
this was true of so many of my colleagues here. For my elderly people 
and the disabled in my district, Bill Emerson was one of the key 
players who helped me provide the legislation for their needs. I 
certainly would like to convey my heartfelt condolences to Jo Ann and 
to the members of his family and to this great gentleman, not because 
he was a Republican, but because he was a great American.
  Mr. SKELTON. Mr. Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the gentlewoman from 
Texas [Ms. Jackson-Lee].
  Ms. JACKSON-LEE of Texas. Mr. Speaker, I rise as the representative 
of the 18th Congressional District in Texas, a district that was 
previously represented by the Honorable Mickey Leland. I know that if 
Mickey was here, he would have wanted to offer just a word of thanks 
for the life of Bill Emerson.
  Bill Emerson and Mickey Leland were very good friends. They were good 
friends, but as well, they were committed to a singular cause. That 
cause was to ensure that there was no more hunger in this world and in 
this Nation, particularly as it relates to children.
  As a freshman, let me say to Bill Emerson's family, Jo Ann and his 
four daughters, that we can only wish that others would follow in the 
tradition of the friendship of Bill and Mickey, and that they would 
also follow the cause, to ensure that all would be able to live free in 
this world, in this Nation, without hunger and hopelessness.
  Let me also say as a freshman, just watching Bill Emerson on the 
floor, knowing what he was dealing with physically, all I could see was 
a genteel and sincere individual, committed to public service, with a 
love for his country. Just a moment ago I was with Joe Hillings, a 
constituent who served as a page with Bill Emerson. He offered his 
grief and his concern for a man who did nothing more than to give to 
his fellow man. He was a servant, he was a lover of people, and I do 
believe if Mickey was here, he would say to his friend, Bill Emerson, 
``Well done, good and faithful servant.''
  Mr. SKELTON. Mr. Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from 
Georgia [Mr. Kingston].
  Mr. KINGSTON. Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentleman for yielding time to 
  Mr. Speaker, when I first came here in 1993, I, like most Members of 
Congress, was somewhat intimidated by everything and everybody, and I 
needed a friend, just as we all need friends during that period of 
time, and certainly as we continue our career. Bill Emerson was one of 
those guys that I found to be open and friendly to new Members, and 
always helpful.
  I could go to Bill for advice on agriculture. I served on the 
Committee on Agriculture with him. All those agriculture issues, as we 
know, are very complicated; understanding the milk program, the peanut 
program, the wheat program. They are just endless. I do not think 
anybody knew as much about those programs on the committee, who had the 
time to sit there and share with you, and so forth. I would go to Bill 
and I would say, okay, what is going on on this? He would explain the 
intricate USDA policy on that.
  One could also go to Bill and ask him, about the political side, and 
he could tell us which groups and which committees and which people 
here, Members of the House, how they stood and what would probably 
happen. He could predict what was going to be the outcome of 
legislation many weeks before it ever got on the floor.

[[Page H6792]]

  If you only knew Bill in that political sense, as a guy who could 
give advice on agriculture issues and politics, you were missing 
something entirely more important to him. That was Bill Emerson, the 
person. Because as a man, he was one who was philosophical. He could 
sit there and with a sense of humor sort of say, well, this is where we 
Republicans are going to line up on this, but those old Democrats, they 
have a good point here, and here is where I agree with them, and here 
is where we disagree. He could just rise above the rough edges of this 
institution and deliver somewhat of a balm, an ointment to the Members, 
so we could all feel a little bit better, not just about ourselves but 
about the legislation and about service in Washington. That is the kind 
of guy Bill Emerson was.
  I, Mr. Speaker, am going to miss Bill Emerson. He always would stand 
back there and kind of peer over the banister, and I believe in many 
respects he will continue to peer down on us, just as he sat back 
there. You could always reach him. I think now we can look high up in 
the heaven and Bill Emerson is in good company with all of the other 
angels of the Lord.
  Mr. SKELTON. Mr. Speaker, I yield 3 minutes to the gentleman from 
Florida [Mr. Shaw].
  Mr. SHAW. Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentleman from Missouri for 
allowing me this time to speak this morning.
  Mr. Speaker, I have seen so many of our classmates that came to 
orientation back in 1980 with Bill Emerson, as I was privileged to come 
to this Congress at the same time. And in thinking about the life of 
Bill Emerson which we celebrate today, and of course, his passing, 
which we mourn today, I think all of us feel a little richer for having 
been with him and a little poorer for now missing him from this body.
  But when we think of his lifespan, starting as a page in this body 
and ending over the last year with his sitting here and presiding as 
Speaker of this House and working in this House, I do not think that 
any man has ever been loved more that served in this House, or any man 
has loved this House more than Bill Emerson loved this House. He loved 
the process and he loved its Members. I think that is something we need 
to think about more today as we see that things are becoming more tense 
here on the floor of this House, and as we work through our legislative 
  We often think of Tip O'Neill as being the man of this House. I think 
we certainly can also refer to Bill Emerson as being the man of this 
House from the Republican side, as Tip O'Neill was from the Democrat 
side. As speakers ahead of me have said, he seemed to have a way to cut 
through the politics and make things happen. He was very practical in 
wanting to make good legislation. We have heard about his concern for 
the hungry, not only of this country, but also of the world. His great 
heart, that no longer beats, had such compassion for his fellow men, 
had compassion for the people that he served with.
  I remember just a few weeks ago Bill was on the floor and he was 
standing right over to my left, where we remember seeing him for the 
last time in a wheelchair. And he was walking. He was still walking 
over for each vote, carrying a little tube of oxygen with him, and 
losing his breath. He was concerned about his losing his energy. When 
he came over here, he had lost his breath.
  I mentioned to him that perhaps he ought to think about getting a 
wheelchair. and he said, my goodness, I do not want to do that. People 
will look at me and think I am dying. Bill fought right up to the very, 
very end.
  Of course, then he decided that he would save his energy so he cold 
spend his time in a productive way when he was on the floor, and the 
last few days of his life here on the floor he would appear here in the 
wheelchair. What a wonderful man Bill was. We are certainly going to 
miss him. Our hearts and our feelings go out to his wonderful wife Jo 
Ann, who is a wonderful friend of my wife Emily, and of course Bill 
Emerson, who was a wonderful friend of all of us.
  I think it would be a great tribute for each one of us in our hearts 
and in our daily work to think of Bill Emerson when we try to get 
together and pass meaningful legislation; as we go through the last 
months of this 104th Congress, that we dedicate each day to a greater 
understanding of each other, in the true memory of Bill Emerson.
  Mr. LAUGHLIN. Mr. Speaker, I am proud to have this opportunity to pay 
tribute to Bill Emerson, a great man, a great Congressman, a great 
Christian, a great friend, and, as we have all heard, a great family 
man, which is so important, and was so important to Bill.
  I had the privilege of serving with Bill on the Committee on 
Transportation and Infrastructure for 6\1/2\ years. When I was on that 
committee with him, I was a Democrat while he was a Republican, and so 
I have heard a number of the speakers talk about the bipartisan way 
that Bill would work with Members.
  Having been a Member of both political parties last year, I can vouch 
first-hand that Bill was such a wonderful individual. He treated each 
Member, regardless of party or ideology, with great respect and would 
work with them on finding solutions to problems. Being senior to me on 
the committee, I respected his advice. There were countless times when 
he said: ``Greg, think about taking this approach; why do we not work 
at it this way?''
  So it is no wonder that so many people have come to the floor today 
to talk about what a wonderful individual Bill Emerson was, because we 
were all proud.
  As the gentleman from Missouri, [Mr. Skelton] would vouch, as I asked 
for 30 minutes to an hour to talk about Bill Emerson, every Member of 
this body could do that. As we would talk about him, we would always 
want to put the word great in front of friend, great in front of 
Congressman, great in front of family man, because Bill Emerson was 
that kind of individual. So we in this body who count Bill as our 
friend are blessed to have had Bill Emerson.
  This Nation was blessed to have had Bill Emerson as a citizen and as 
a Congressman. We know from his love and the way he expressed his love 
and affection for his family, his family was blessed, as we all were, 
that Bill Emerson was a part of their lives as we were in our lives. So 
America has been blessed, as his family was, by the good Lord that Bill 
Emerson was a part of their lives, as ours.
  Mr. SKELTON. Mr. Speaker, I yield 3 minutes to the gentleman from 
Ohio [Mr. Kasich].
  Mr. KASICH. Mr. Speaker, first of all, I would like to thank the 
gentleman from Missouri, Mr. Skelton, arguably the best friend that 
Bill Emerson had in the House, for yielding me this time.
  We have heard a lot today about Bill Emerson, about his commitment as 
a public servant, his friendship to Members on this floor on both sides 
of the aisle. I want to talk just very briefly about something, a 
little gift that Bill Emerson passed on to me, and that was Bill 
Emerson's faith.
  Bill Emerson was diagnosed with what he must have known was a 
terminal condition. It was amazing to me how calm Bill Emerson was in 
the face of staring death square in the eye. I went to Bill Emerson, 
and I said: ``Bill, what about this peace? You do not seem to be 
struggling, you do not seem to be angry. What about this?''
  He said: ``Well, John, you have to understand, a number of years ago 
I started working on my faith, my faith in God and my faith in Jesus 
Christ.'' And he said: ``John, at some point in our lives we have to 
decide whether it is just a game or whether it is real. I have decided 
that it is real. My faith is real. I will see my Lord in heaven. And 
either way it goes, I am going to be a winner. Either I am going to 
recover and I am going to be able to be a servant of God right here on 
earth, or I am going to go and meet my Lord and Savior in heaven. So, 
John, everybody has to decide, for those that go to church, for those 
that read the Bible, is this just a game that we play with ourselves, 
or is it something that we accept and believe and practice, and believe 
as real as my talking to you.''
  That is why Bill Emerson had such an incredible struggle with his 
cancer. That is what Bill Emerson passed on to me, a giant piece of his 
personal faith.
  Mr. Speaker, we can always tell whether people really practice their

[[Page H6793]]

faith, really believe wholly in their faith when the chips are down, 
when their backs are up against the wall. Bill Emerson never got angry, 
Bill Emerson never was frustrated, and he never blinked when he went 
eyeball to eyeball with death. Bill Emerson believed in his heart and 
in his mind that death was nothing more than a transition to a promised 
land that he has believed in.
  Today, I have to tell my colleagues, that face shines bright in my 
mind. He gave me a piece of it. He made me more peaceful in my heart 
about the future and what a terrific, tremendous, wonderful gift the 
faith of Bill Emerson that he passed on to many of his friends, his 
family, and his colleagues. God bless you, Bill. God bless you. We will 
miss you.
  Mr. SKELTON. Mr. Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from 
Wisconsin [Mr. Roth].
  Mr. ROTH. Mr. Speaker, I thank my friend for yielding me this time.
  Like so many of my colleagues, Bill Emerson was a personal friend of 
mine. So many nice things have been said about him on the floor today 
and rightly so, he deserves all of them. I do have many pleasant 
memories of Bill Emerson like my colleagues do.
  I remember the last time we were over with Bob Dole over at the 
Cannon Caucus Room. So many remember Bob Dole took a few minutes to 
talk about Bill Emerson in his last speech in the Congress, and I 
thought that was a wonderful tribute that Bob Dole did.
  I noticed every speaker spoke about Bill Emerson's attitude, and that 
is the thing that struck me. I do not think I would have had nearly the 
courage that Bill Emerson had. I remember the last time I saw him here. 
I shook hands with him, and I said: ``You have a strong handshake.'' He 
said: ``I am strong, I just cannot get enough oxygen.'' There was never 
any doubt that this man just had 100 percent confidence.
  The gentleman from West Virginia [Mr. Wise] spoke here on the floor. 
He said that he was in Cape Girardeau, I was at Cape Girardeau with you 
and some others, and it is true he was really loved and respected.
  When I first came to Congress here, we had a Congressman by the name 
of Bill Steiger. He died just before we were sworn in. Tip O'Neill was 
the Speaker. And Tip O'Neill summed up Bill Steiger's life in four 
words. He said: ``This man had respect.'' And that is what I would say 
about Bill Emerson, this man had respect. That is the best I think we 
can say when a man leaves this Congress, a man or woman leaves this 
  We also remember when Bill Emerson was in the chair. No one did a 
better job in the chair than Bill Emerson. Not only was he fair, but he 
had total command of what was going on on the floor. But Bill Emerson 
left a legacy to you and to me, and that legacy was courage. I mean 
real courage. We saw that courage daily here in his wheelchair; his 
attitude was always 100 percent.
  I think the thing that we can remember about him, when we think 
things are tough here on the floor, let us remember Bill Emerson, and 
things will be made easy.
  Mr. SKELTON. Mr. Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from 
Kentucky [Mr. Whitfield].
  Mr. WHITFIELD. Mr. Speaker, I want to thank the gentleman from 
Missouri for yielding me this time.
  As it has been said all afternoon Bill Emerson truly was a remarkable 
man. I had the opportunity to come to know him just since 1994 when he 
became involved in my race for the U.S. Congress. My district is right 
across the river from his. And he came to my district on one occasion 
to help out my constituents in a matter that they were concerned about.
  A couple of weeks ago I was driving through my rural district of 
western Kentucky. I came across a small church. There was a bulletin 
board out there and it simply said: You cannot make a success of life 
without making a gift of it.
  Subsequent to that, I thought that that certainly applied to Bill 
Emerson. Bill Emerson was a husband, he was a father, he was a son, he 
was a politician, and in all of those roles he made a success of those 
roles because he made a gift of his life.
  At this time when there is so much cynicism and apathy around the 
country about politics, I genuinely wish that people from all across 
America would have had an opportunity to sit down and talk to Bill 
Emerson about government, about a democracy, because he was truly 
committed to it. He believed in this body, he believed in our democracy 
and in our process, and all of us will miss him. We will be thinking 
about his wife Jo Ann and his four children.
  I had the opportunity to meet his mother just a couple of days ago, 
and in looking in her eyes, I saw that twinkling in her eye that all of 
us saw when we talked and looked into Bill Emerson's face, and we will 
all miss him. But he was a gift to us, and I, for one, will always 
cherish that.
  Mr. SKELTON. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume.
  Mr. Speaker, we have spoken a great deal about our friend Bill 
Emerson this afternoon. I would be remiss if I did not say a word or 
two about loyalty, loyalty to those about him and those about him were 
extremely loyal to him.
  At this time I would like to say a word of thanks to the D.C. staff 
and to the district staff of the late Bill Emerson for the wonderful 
work that they did for him to help him serve the people of Missouri: 
Tricia Schade, David LaVallee, Julie Pickett, Pete Jeffries, Glenn 
Kelly, Lisa Johnson, Julia Kertz, Seaver Sowers, Neil Moseman, Jess 
Sharp. Those are the ones who composed the staff here in the Rayburn 
  In the district: Lloyd Smith, Kacky Garner, Pat Pecuat, Greg Branum, 
Carol Goldsmith, Alan Heath, Mike Chitwood, Iris Bernhardt, and Carlene 
  Each of these staff members served so ably and so well. And on behalf 
of all of us, we thank them.
  Mr. Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from Delaware [Mr. 
  Mr. CASTLE. Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentleman for yielding me this 
time to speak on behalf of the loss of his great friend.
  It is so sad to be here today and not have Bill here. He has been in 
this Chamber, I guess, as much as anybody else over the years. His 
spirit has always been here and hopefully will always be here.
  I got to know Bill a little bit differently than some other people. 
Back when I was the Governor of Delaware, he came to Delaware to look 
at some programs we were running involving food stamps and nutrition 
and delivery of services. He liked these programs, and I liked Bill 
Emerson. We were not used to having Congressmen come to Delaware, quite 
frankly, if they were not from Delaware. He took the time to come up 
there, and when I came to Congress he was my friend. He was one person 
I knew, and he was one person who spent time with me.
  I did not realize he was the friend of 434 of us here in this 
Congress. We have heard more fascinating stories in these last 2 hours 
about this wonderful man and the way he reached out to different 
individuals, be they neighbors or committee members or classmates or 
whatever it was. But Bill Emerson was bigger than that. He was almost 
bigger than anyone else who ever served in this Congress. He was for 
all humanity.
  He was the one who reached out for those who had problems with hunger 
around this world. He was the one who reached across the aisle to 
Democrats as well as to Republicans. He was the one who virtually made 
a friend of everybody he dealt with. He was the one who was so popular 
in his district that he just won by overwhelming margins there.
  He was the one with a wonderful family. He is the one that we are 
offering our condolences for here today because he meant so very much 
to so many people in the United States of America.
  There may have been finer Members of Congress, but I do not know if I 
could name who they were or who they might be. I do not know of anyone 
who has served his fellow man as well as Bill Emerson did over all of 
the years that he represented us in this Congress.
  So we will miss you, Bill. We will miss your spirit. We will miss all 
that you stood for, particularly at the end when you were so brave and 
so courageous.
  Frankly, I did not think it would ever end. It just came as a 

[[Page H6794]]

even though we all knew that ultimately it had to be fatal. So we will 
miss you, Bill. God bless you.
  Mr. SKELTON. Mr. Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from 
Illinois [Mr. Crane].

                              {time}  1715

  Mr. CRANE. Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentleman from Missouri for 
yielding me this time.
  With regard to all of the comments made about Bill Emerson, I can 
only say amen. As a very dear person, a caring person, though, I would 
like to share an anecdote.
  I have my No. 5 daughter suffering from cancer and she has been going 
through chemotherapy since last October. She was over here visiting on 
the floor with me and we ran into Bill. He told her that he was going 
through the same experience. He really lifted her spirits. He told her, 
``Hang in there, you're going to beat this,'' and he reassured her. 
Then he asked me further for her telephone number when she was in the 
hospital, getting chemo, and when she was home, he called her, just 
lifting her spirits.
  Bill, of course, had that amazing quality for maintaining high 
spirits even when he knew what the prospects were.
  I share this as an anecdote only because it was so personal and 
meaningful to me. As a father, of course, you anguish over your little 
ones through that kind of experience, but you cannot help but anguish 
over those who suffer the loss most, and, that is, his lovely wife Jo 
Ann and his daughters, his mother.
  But remember that the pain and suffering and the anguish of that loss 
is experienced only by we survivors. Bill is home free and he is 
looking down smiling upon all of us and he probably feels a little 
embarrassed at times over some of these revelations of our affections 
for him.
  When my dad passed away last year and we all attended, it was family 
reunion time, I reassured my brothers, my sister, and the family that, 
hey, the big reunion time is right up there now, and his parents were 
waiting for him and all the loved ones that preceded him.
  It is time for Bill to enjoy his celebration. He pulled his tour of 
duty. We can only look forward to the time when we can participate in 
that joyful experience and recognize that in the interim, though, we 
are here to try and bolster one another and to carry on the good fight 
and in the best tradition that Bill did. God bless you, Bill Emerson.
  Mr. CLAY. Mr. Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from 
Virginia [Mr. Goodlatte].
  Mr. GOODLATTE. Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentleman from Missouri for 
yielding this time to me as we pay tribute to one of the great men of 
the U.S. Congress.
  Bill Emerson truly was a man of the House. His participation in this 
body extends far back beyond when he was first elected to the Congress 
in 1980. In fact, in our Republican cloakroom, we have a picture of 
Bill dating back to March 1, 1954. It is a fitting tribute in memory to 
him. He played a part in the history of this Congress, because on that 
day some terrorists burst into the Chamber through those doors up there 
to my left in the gallery and sprayed the entire House Chamber with 
  Bill Emerson was here because at that time he was the chief page on 
the Democratic side, because in 1954 that was the last time the 
Republicans were the majority in the Congress, and he was responsible 
for the pages on the Democratic side. He was over in that corner. I can 
remember him as vividly as possible telling me this story, just a 
couple of years ago, explaining that picture to me, back in that 
corner, he hit the floor, there are bullet holes in the wall back there 
for anybody who wishes to examine it, bullet holes here in the desks on 
the Republican side, and the photograph in the back shows Bill Emerson 
carrying out Congressman Alvin Bentley, a Republican of Michigan, one 
of five Members of the House who was wounded that day. So Bill 
Emerson's part in the history of this House extends back virtually all 
of my lifetime.
  I had the honor of serving on the Committee on Agriculture with him 
for the past 3\1/2\ years, and serving on the Department Operations and 
Nutrition Subcommittee with him. He truly was a caring man who cared a 
great deal about the people that he was serving in his district, about 
the people who benefited from the Government programs under his 
auspices, and the taxpayer whose dollar he always looked after as he 
represented his constituents very wisely.
  Bill Emerson is truly someone we can all be proud of, someone who 
represented his district and who represents all of us in the Congress 
as a legacy in the history of this country.
  Mr. SKELTON. Mr. Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from 
Iowa [Mr. Latham].
  Mr. LATHAM. I thank the gentleman very much, and I thank the Speaker 
for this opportunity to honor a very, very special person in my life, 
Bill Emerson.
  First of all, I want to extend my most sincere sympathy to Jo Ann, 
the daughters, and the entire family.
  Mr. Speaker, I came here 18 months ago, a freshman. Bill Emerson took 
me under his wing and was my mentores here. I was very fortunate to 
have the unique opportunity to serve with Bill not only on the Ag 
Committee, the full committee, and Transportation and Infrastructure, 
but each of the four subcommittees that we served on together. I 
sincerely cherish the time that I had with Bill here.
  Bill was always there to answer what had to seem like my endless 
questions. He was always there with stories about his experiences in 
Congress, in this body, and with stories about his beloved Missouri. 
And he was always there as a true friend. My only regret here is that I 
only had 18 months to be with Bill and to learn from him.
  In the past few months, it seems that Bill wanted to teach me as much 
as possible as quickly as possible, somehow knowing that maybe his time 
was running short. I will never forget just 2 weeks ago when we were 
marking up the food stamp bill in the Ag Committee, that I was honored 
that he asked me to give his statement because he was too weak and it 
would be very, very difficult for him to do so.

  As Bill continued to battle his illness, he continually asked me to 
pray for him, and I think he asked many of us here to do that. He kept 
telling us that the prayers were working and that he could feel our 
  I will never forget what Bill Emerson meant to me. Someday I would 
hope to be half as food in this body as Bill was.
  Also, I will never forget his faith in God. When Bill Emerson came 
here, he did take me under his wing, and I know today that Bill Emerson 
has been taken under God's wing. Knowing that, I can celebrate both his 
life and his death today.
  Mr. SKELTON. Mr. Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from 
Tennessee [Mr. Clement].
  Mr. CLEMENT. Mr. Speaker, when I came to the House of 
Representatives, one of the first people I met was Bill Emerson. Bill 
was a gentleman in every sense of the word, and I will never forget it. 
We took a trip several years ago to Israel. He was such a good will 
ambassador, not only for this country and for his congressional 
district and for the great State of Missouri, but for the world. I 
think all of us know of his emphasis and focus on hunger in the world. 
It truly is a great, great problem. Bill Emerson was out there on the 
front lines.
  When we were in Israel, Mickey Leland was killed in that terrible 
airplane crash in Africa. Bill Emerson dropped everything to try to 
find out about Congressman Leland and even tried to get to Africa to 
see if there was any way he could help. That is the kind of person Bill 
Emerson was.
  Life works in strange ways, but you can have a difference of opinion 
without having a difference of principle. That is what Bill Emerson was 
all about. He did not care whether you were a Democrat or a Republican. 
He cared whether you cared about America. He always attacked the issue. 
He did not attack the individual. He did not try in any way to destroy 
the institution. He did everything he could to build the institution 
and build faith and confidence in this great country. Bill, you are 
going to be really missed. To your lovely wife Jo Ann and to your 
wonderful family, we will never forget you.

[[Page H6795]]

  Mr. SKELTON. Mr. Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from 
Illinois [Mr. Durbin].
  Mr. DURBIN. Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentleman from Missouri for 
yielding me this time. I want to extend my sympathies to the Emerson 
family. When I first came to Congress 14 years ago, Bill Emerson was my 
neighbor in the Cannon Office Building. He was also my neighbor across 
the Mississippi River from Illinois in Missouri. We talked a lot about 
our similar backgrounds and similar districts. Of course we were of 
different political parties. I am a Democrat, and he was a Republican. 
We are very proud of our partisan heritage but it never stood in the 
way of a good friendship. Over the years I came to know Bill and 
respect him very, very much. He fought some classic battles, both 
personal and political. In each one of them he showed a level of class 
which is rare in this institution. It is really unfortunate but true 
that from time to time we let politics get too personal in this 
institution and we forget that we are in fact colleagues and all quite 
honored to have this opportunity to serve in the U.S. House of 
Representatives. Bill never forgot it. I think it goes back to his 
experience as a young man serving as a page in the House and then 
coming back to be a Member of this institution. He loved the House so 
  There were times when the rhetoric around here and the debate would 
become so partisan and so personal that Bill would take it on himself 
to go and meet with the Democrats on the other side of the aisle and 
say, let's start bringing Members together for informal dinners so that 
people become friends again and realize that we still have so much more 
in common.
  Then the year before last Speaker Tom Foley appointed Bill Emerson 
and myself to serve as co-chairs of a bipartisan task force on Federal 
disaster assistance. It was a great experience, because I literally sat 
shoulder to shoulder with Bill Emerson for months as we went through 
hearings and came up with a joint report that we both agreed on. We 
completely trusted one another, we worked together closely on a 
bipartisan basis, and I think did good work for this Nation and for 
this House of Representatives.
  Bill Emerson is going to be missed but what he brought to this House 
of Representatives we will remember for a long, long time. It was a 
certain level of class which we should all aspire to.
  Mr. SKELTON. Mr. Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from 
Tennessee [Mr. Tanner].
  Mr. TANNER. I thank the gentleman from Missouri [Mr. Skelton] for 
yielding me this time.
  Mr. Speaker, what Bob Clement said earlier I thought was very 
apropos; that is, that people can disagree without being disagreeable. 
Bill Emerson was truly a man of the House, a man of this institution.
  I had the privilege of working with Bill a lot, because part of my 
district is right across the river from the Missouri boot heel. I can 
tell Members from personal experience, Bill Emerson was loved in the 
Missouri boot heel. We did a lot of work together on the Mississippi 
River. both of us served as president of the Lower Mississippi Valley 
Flood Control Association and had a lot of common interests that we 
were pursuing to help the folks that lived along the river up and down.
  My heart goes out to Jo Ann and the family because Bill Emerson was 
truly a gentleman. I never heard him say a harsh remark about someone 
personally on this floor. It happens all too often, as some of the 
other speakers have said. That is what I mean about being able to 
disagree in an agreeable way. That is really what this institution 
ought to be about. Bill Emerson lived his life in furtherance of that 
  I just hope his memory, and I think it will, will permeate this place 
for many years to come. He was a good man and true gentleman and we 
will miss him greatly.
  Mr. SKELTON. Mr. Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from 
Texas [Mr. Stenholm].

                              {time}  1730

  Mr. STENHOLM. Mr. Speaker, I would just like to say that the Bill 
Emerson that I knew was a very, very special person. Bill loved his 
God. He loved his country. He loved his family. He loved his district, 
his State, and he loved this House of Representatives. The last 
conversation that I had with Bill, he was looking ahead to next year 
and wanting to be a part of making the constructive changes that he 
tried all of his life, from, I think, since serving as a page in this 
institution the first time.
  Having sat by Bill every Thursday morning in the House prayer 
breakfast group, I was blessed many times by having him share his ideas 
about life and what it meant, and even during these last several weeks 
when it clearly was becoming more and more of a severe problem for 
Bill, he never lost his faith.
  I would just, too, like to say to Jo Ann and to the family and to all 
of his many other friends back home, I know everyone will miss him, but 
so will we. We know now that Bill is in Heaven and I know he is smiling 
down and appreciating the nice things that many of us have said when 
perhaps he would say, ``You could have done a little better job when we 
were here, too, Charlie.'' But Bill, we miss you. God bless you.
  Mr. SKELTON. Mr. Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the gentlewoman from 
California [Ms. Pelosi].
  Ms. PELOSI. Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentleman for yielding me the 
  Mr. Speaker, I wish to join my colleagues in mourning the passing 
Bill Emerson, the gentleman from Missouri, truly the gentleman from 
Missouri. We all talk about when we first got to know Bill, and I did 
in his work with Mickey LeLand on the Committee On Hunger. I was not a 
member. I wanted to be. The two of them were so enthusiastic, and is it 
not sad that we have lost both of them.
  Others have reminisced about when Mickey's plane went down and how 
Bill reacted to that and redoubled his already boundless efforts to end 
world hunger. We had a few chuckles over the fact that we were working 
together on disaster relief when of course everyone knows that we are 
earthquake prone in California and San Francisco, but when Missouri was 
identified as a potential site, again with all the gusto in the world, 
as the gentleman from Illinois [Mr. Durbin] mentioned he launched into 
the disaster relief issue.
  I want to extend my sympathy to Jo Ann and the Emerson family. I hope 
it is a comfort to them that Bill is mourned by every single one of his 
colleagues, that this House that he dearly loved and served so well is 
diminished by our loss of Bill, and that all who know him pray for the 
family at this very difficult time.
  As has been mentioned, Bill was very concerned about his staff and we 
all are, too Bill. But I want to say that as has been mentioned, Bill 
was a person of faith. He was a man of faith. With that faith, he 
helped all of us here reinforce our own faith and be kinder to each 
  In his work to end world hunger, Bill Emerson worked on the side of 
the angels, and now he is with them.
  Mr. SKELTON. Mr. Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from 
Virginia [Mr. Wolf].
  Mr. WOLF. Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentleman for yielding me the 
  Mr. Speaker, I had spoken yesterday and I was not going to speak 
again today, but something came up, I wanted to speak. Bill Emerson and 
Tony Hall and a few of us are part of a covenant group. We met every 
Tuesday in the chapel. In fact, as we just broke up, a group of us, the 
whole meeting was on Bill. Somebody sent flowers that were on the altar 
today for Bill. Somebody else brought and put on all the chairs a 
jersey for all of us in the group from Bill.
  Bill was a committed Christian. Bill loved Jesus as much as he loved 
anything else. So I just want people to know, and I can speak 
personally from having listened to Bill for the last several years, he 
loved Christ. He knew that when he died, where he was going, that he 
was going to Heaven to be with the Lord. Bill was somebody whom 
everyone loved on both sides, and those in our group, Tony Hall and our 
group, kind of transcend it. In fact, we had greater loyalty in our 
group to the individuals in the group than we actually had to our 
parties. We worked together on many issues, and we are going to miss 
Bill an awful, awful lot.

[[Page H6796]]

  Mr. SKELTON. Mr. Speaker, I yield 1 minute to the gentleman from Ohio 
[Mr. Oxley].
  Mr. OXLEY. Mr. Speaker, it is a tribute to Bill Emerson that we are 
here in going on now 2\1/2\ hours eulogizing him and remembering him. 
He was a Member of my class, the 97th class, even though I caught up 
with him about 7 months later because I came in a special election in 
1981. Bill was one of the first people to come over and extend a hand 
and help me with this great transition from the State legislature to 
the Congress.
  Recently I had an opportunity to participate in a congressional study 
group on Germany meeting in Bill's district in Cape Girardeau and, 
unfortunately, Bill was unable to attend because he was having 
treatment back here at Georgetown. As a result, some of the Members 
that were out there listened to Bill call in, and we were there with 
members of the German Bundestag, and it was so evident what pride Bill 
took in his district and his constituency. He even gave us a book from 
Mark Twain that had a specific part of the book marked where Mark Twain 
talks about Cape Girardeau and that area, and the German members of the 
Bunderstag were so impressed with Bill's commitment and his strong 
feeling about German-American relationships and the strong number of 
German-Americans that were in his district.
  He was a person who everybody in this House could look up to and yet 
feel that they were a friend on an equal basis. We will miss his great 
honesty, his humor. We wish the very best to his family and Jo Ann, his 
wife, for someone we will miss greatly, a real leader in this House and 
one who loved this House of Representatives, Bill Emerson.
  Mr. SKELTON. Mr. Speaker, I yield 1 minute to the gentleman from New 
Mexico [Mr. Richardson].
  Mr. RICHARDSON. Mr. Speaker, I did not know Bill Emerson as well as 
some of my colleagues, but what I did not know of him, when I think of 
him and remember him, I will think of the words decency, commitment, 
honesty, collegiality, civility, which is sometimes in this body 
something that we have lacked.
  The last word I ever heard him say was ``good''. I remember seeing 
him in his wheelchair and I asked him, Bill, how are you doing? And he 
said, ``I'm good.'' He was fighting till the end. A class guy, an 
honorable guy, a guy that when individuals think of this Congress, they 
see somebody in the best traditions of the men and women that serve 
  Sometimes we speak ill of each other and speak ill of this 
institution. Bill Emerson loved this institution. He would be upset at 
those that reviled it, and I will always remember him as a man with 
class, a bipartisan person who cared deeply, a person who cared deeply 
by about this country, about hunger, about foreign policy, about his 
farming district, about where he came from, and I will always have that 
very good feeling about Bill Emerson.
  Mr. SKELTON. Mr. Speaker, I yield 1 minute to the gentleman from 
Florida [Mr. Johnston].
  Mr. JOHNSTON of Florida. Mr. Speaker, I guess the politics of Bill 
Emerson and myself were 180 degrees apart. We were diagonally opposite. 
He is a conservative, I am a liberal. He was for a constitutional 
amendment against flag burning, I was against that. He was for English 
only, I was against that. He was pro-life, I am pro-choice. But Bill 
Emerson is pro-life in the ultimate sense. Without him, without Frank, 
who just spoke, without Tony Hall, a lot of Africans would die this 
year of starvation. Bill Emerson interceded, and Frank Wolf and he went 
to the leadership and got food aid put back in the budget last year.
  He was a close friend, and I personally will miss him.
  Mr. SKELTON. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume.
  Mr. Speaker, we have witnessed this afternoon tributes to a wonderful 
American, great Missourian, Bill Emerson. I have not seen such an 
outpouring in my time here in the Congress of the United States. Habit 
is a funny thing. Habits sometimes become a ritual. To and from work, 
driving from McLean, as we did nearly every day, in the morning when he 
would come by the House, ``Billy,'' ``Mr. Ike,'' then the conversation 
was off and we would visit all the way down, trying to solve problems, 
discussing everything from family to friends to work for the people we 
  Then at night we would drive back and getting ready to get out, the 
conversation would be, ``What time tomorrow?'' ``7:20.'' ``7:20.'' 
``Good night, Bill. 7:20.'' We will always fondly remember that 
wonderful Missourian, Bill Emerson.
  I also wish to thank the gentleman from St. Louis, MO, [Mr. Clay], 
for initiating this resolution. It is certainly thoughtful of him to do 
so and to allow us to participate.
  Mr. FRELINGHUYSEN. I am pleased to rise to honor the memory of my 
friend and colleague, the gentleman from Missouri, the late Bill 
  For the past 18 months, he has been a friend and periodic advisor. He 
has generously shared his love of Congress as an institution with me 
and his deep knowledge and interest in American history, most 
especially the role of Abraham Lincoln and his family.
  Bill Emerson touched the lives of two generations of Frelinghuysen's 
in Congress. He was a congressional page in 1954 when my father, Peter 
H.B. Frelinghuysen was a Member of this body. He was on the floor, as 
my father was, on the fateful day when Puerto Rican nationalists shot 
and wounded several Members of Congress from the spectators gallery.
  He was a special person and one who had an immediate impact on those 
he met. Perhaps the greatest indication of his impact on this House and 
those who work in it is the testament that we've heard today--from 
Republicans and Democrats, liberals and conservatives, men and women, 
old friends and new who all respected this honorable man.
  At a time when it is fashionable to criticize government and 
Congress, Bill Emerson was always unabashed in his defense of this 
institution. He served as an example to us all that quiet leadership, 
an open mind, and a strong commitment to constituent service is the 
best way to earn the public trust and the respect of our colleagues.
  We can honor his service by practicing these virtues. And through 
this effort by each and every one of us, the House of Representatives 
that Bill Emerson loved so much will bear his grand imprint for many 
years to come.
  Mr. FRANKS of Connecticut. Mr. Speaker, it is with a great degree of 
sadness that we, today, mark the passing of a true, distinguished 
public servant, and a fine human being, Congressman Bill Emerson of 
  Mr. Speaker, we will always remember Bill for his wonderful sense of 
institutional history, his championing of the hungry and downtrodden of 
the world, his tireless work for the agricultural interests of the 
United States, and his longtime service to his country.
  Mr. Speaker, the immense love Bill Emerson displayed for his family, 
his friends, his Missouri, his country, and his God should always 
resonate with us. We were truly blessed to have such a wonderful man 
serving among us.
  To Bill, I say ``So long, good friend. You are going to be missed by 
a lot of people down here. It was an honor to know you.''
  Mr. SENSENBRENNER. Mr. Speaker, I rise today to pay tribute to the 
late Representative Bill Emerson, a distinguished American who served 
his country with unsurpassed dignity and an inspiring fighting spirit.
  Representative Emerson began his public service as a teenaged House 
page in 1954. He later served on the staffs of Representative Bob 
Ellsworth and Senator Charles Mathias.
  In 1980, Representative Emerson sacrificed a lucrative lobbying 
career to run for Congress. Through his dogged determination and 
exemplary integrity, Bill Emerson defeated the Democratic incumbent, 
becoming the first Republican in 50 years to represent the Cape 
Girardeau-Bootheel region.
  During his 16 years in Congress and throughout his life, Bill Emerson 
earned the respect and admiration of his colleagues and the public. He 
was able to rise above politics and work together with Members on the 
other side of the aisle to pass legislation benefiting our country. As 
a compassionate leader on the Agriculture Committee, Bill Emerson 
dedicated much of his efforts to food stamps and nutrition programs.
  No matter what challenge life threw at him, Bill Emerson attacked it 
with every fiber in his body. He fought and defeated alcohol dependency 
and never gave up his fight against cancer. Since being diagnosed with 
cancer last November, Bill's spirit and zeal for life never wavered.
  This House and our country has lost a great American patriot. I offer 
my condolences to the family and friends of the Honorable Bill Emerson.
  Mr. JOHNSON of South Dakota. Mr. Speaker, I rise today to join my 
colleagues in mourning the death of Bill Emerson.

[[Page H6797]]

  I was privileged to have worked with Bill on the Agriculture 
Committee for the 10 years that I have served in the House, including 
having him as my ranking member on the General Commodities Subcommittee 
during my time as chairman of that subcommittee. As was the nature of 
the Agriculture Committee in previous years, we worked on a bipartisan 
basis to ensure the competitiveness of American agriculture on many 
  He was a tireless advocate of those less fortunate in our country, 
particularly the hungry in this Nation. With the bounty produced by his 
congressional district, I know it was frustrating for him to think that 
in this day and age that children still go to bed hungry. We are also 
aware that this concern spanned the continents as he joined our late 
colleague Mickey Leland and Congressman Hall in working to stamp out 
hunger in foreign lands as well.
  He served the constituents of his district well on the Public Works 
and Transportation Committee and on the Agriculture Committee. He, like 
I, represented a district which has a wide variety of agricultural 
commodities grown, sometimes with divergent views. He was always an 
advocate for the farmers in his district above all else and fought 
relentlessly to ensure that their interests were heard. His work on the 
Public Works Committee also underscored his understanding of the issues 
of importance to his district--safe drinking water and adequate 
transportation systems to allow his rural district to complete on an 
equal basis with their urban neighbors and enjoy the same quality of 
  Mr. thoughts and prayers are with his family, his staff, and the 
constituents of the Eighth District of Missouri as they mourn their 
loss and remember the life and times that they shared with him. His 
death is a loss for all of us and for this institution that he loved, 
the U.S. Congress.
  Mr. STOKES. Mr Speaker, I want to thank my colleague, the 
distinguished dean of the Missouri congressional delegation, 
Congressman Bill Clay, for allowing us this time to pay tribute to our 
departed colleague, Bill Emerson. We join the members of the Missouri 
congressional delegation and, in particular, the people of the Eighth 
Congressional District in mourning the recent passing of a 
distinguished lawmaker, a dedicated politician, and a good friend.
  I am proud to have served in this legislative Chamber with Bill 
Emerson. He came to Washington, DC, with a sense of dedication and the 
highest level of commitment to public service. Throughout his career, 
he worked hard and fought for issues which he believed in. Many of us 
recall that when the Hunger Caucus was abolished, Bill Emerson joined 
my colleague from Ohio, Tony Hall, in fasting to bring attention to the 
issue. On other issues of importance to the Nation, Bill Emerson was 
the voice of reason and compassion. He was a courageous lawmaker and a 
gentleman at all times.
  Mr. Speaker, I saw Bill just a few nights ago when he was coming into 
this Chamber in his wheelchair. I recall that he was in good spirits, 
and told me at that time than he was still fighting hard and doing all 
right. Bill Emerson was that type of champion. The fact that despite 
his battle, he was here in this Chamber just a few days ago carrying 
out his legislative duties, is a reflection of his strength of 
character and commitment to duty. He did his very best and he served 
with the highest level of integrity and dignity.
  I will miss our colleague, Bill Emerson. I join my colleagues in 
extending my sympathy to his wife and members of the Emerson family. We 
have lost a good friend and America has lost a champion.
  The SPEAKER pro tempore (Mr. Dreier). The question is on the 
  The resolution was agreed to.
  A motion to reconsider was laid on the table.