[Pages H3281-H3303]
From the Congressional Record Online through the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]

EMERGENCY SUPPLEMENTAL APPROPRIATIONS FOR ADDITIONAL DISASTER
ASSISTANCE AND RESCISSIONS FOR FISCAL YEAR 1995

The SPEAKER pro tempore (Mr. Linder). Pursuant to House Resolution
115 and rule XXIII, the Chair declares the House in the Committee of
the Whole House on the State of the Union for the further consideration
of the bill, H.R. 1158.

{time} 1015

In the Committee of the Whole

Accordingly, the House resolved itself into the Committee of the
Whole House on the State of the Union for the further consideration of
the bill (H.R. 1158) making emergency supplemental appropriations for
additional disaster assistance and making rescissions for the fiscal
year ending September 30, 1995, and for other purposes, with Mr.
Bereuter in the chair.
The Clerk read the title of the bill.
The CHAIRMAN. When the Committee of the Whole rose on Wednesday,
March 15, 1995, amendment No. 66, offered by the gentleman from
California [Mr. Rohrabacher], had been disposed of and the bill was
open for amendment at any point.
Two hours and 3 minutes remain for consideration of amendments under
the 5-minute rule.
Are there further amendments to the bill?

Preferential Motion Offered by Mr. Obey

Mr. OBEY. Mr. Chairman, I offer a preferential motion.
The Clerk read as follows:

Mr. Obey moves that the Committee rise and report the bill
back to the House with the recommendation that the enacting
clause be stricken.

The CHAIRMAN. The gentleman from Wisconsin [Mr. Obey] will be
recognized on his preferential motion. Five minutes will be allowed on
each side. The gentleman from Louisiana [Mr. Livingston] will control
the other 5 minutes.
Is the gentleman from Louisiana opposed to the motion?
Mr. LIVINGSTON. I am, Mr. Chairman.
The CHAIRMAN. The Chair recognizes the gentleman from Wisconsin [Mr.
Obey].
Mr. OBEY. Mr. Chairman, let me simply say that I am moving to strike
the enacting clause to give the House an opportunity to reconsider what
it is about to do on this legislation today.
Everyone recognizes in this House that we need to save money. Let me
stipulate again as I have throughout the process, I fully support
cutting every dollar in the macro amount, in the total amount in this
bill.
The only dispute that we have on the Democratic side of the aisle
with those on the Republican side of the aisle is where you cut the
dollars in this bill and where you do not. We think you ought to change
the targets. We think you ought to cut more congressional pork, for
instance. We think you ought to reconsider your decision to prevent the
Coleman amendment from coming to the floor which would have allowed us
to cut $400 million in Members' highway pork. We think you ought to
reconsider your decision to prevent us from offering an amendment which
delays for 5 years the construction and purchase of the F-22 aircraft.
The F-22 aircraft is meant to replace the F-15. The F-15 is the best
fighter in the world. Nobody can come close to that fighter. For us to
move
to replace the F-15 with the F-22 when the F-15 clearly has a military
life extending out to the year 2014, for us to decide we are going to
buy the replacement plane at $150 million a copy is budgetary nonsense.

We think that we ought to delay the construction of the F-15 for 5
years so that you can save $7 billion so that you do not have to cut
school lunches by $7 billion. We think that is a better tradeoff.
We think you ought to cut less in the programs that you have targeted
that hit kids. We think we should not cut public broadcasting to the
extent that you have cut it. We are willing to take
[[Page H3282]] a small cut. We think you should not cut Healthy Start.
We think you should not eliminate summer jobs for 610,000 kids around
the country. We think you should not do what you are doing on the
school lunch program. We think you should not cut 100,000 scholarships
for kids who need it.
Our concern is that this bill mirrors what you are trying to do with
the tax bill.
On the tax bill, you have a capital gains provision which provides 75
percent of the benefits to people who make more than $100,000 a year.
It is elitist. We think you should not in your tax bill have the
provision which eliminates the requirement which we have had for years
that requires Fortune 500 corporations to pay taxes. We do not think we
ought to go back to the days when you had companies like AT&T, Du Pont,
General Dynamics, Pepsico, Texaco, Greyhound, Panhandle East, W.R.
Grace, et cetera, et cetera, who paid no taxes. We think this bill
mirrors that mistake that you make in your tax package.
What I would simply say to you is this: We believe that this bill is
warped and we believe there is no underlying sense of decency in the
way the cuts are focused in this bill.
I would ask, in the words of Joseph Welch, the great counsel to the
Army during the Army-McCarthy hearings, I would ask with respect to the
targets you have selected in this bill, ``Have you no sense of
decency?''
Why on earth attack children? Why on earth say to 2 million senior
citizens, ``We are going to make you choose between paying your
prescription drug bills and paying your home heating bills''? Why on
earth do you do that?
Some of you say, well, seniors will still get their heating paid
because the ulilities will be required to provide that heat. The fact
is an awful lot of seniors get their heat from fuels that are not
publicly regulated. So there is no guarantee that they do not get shut
off in 30-below-zero weather.
Why on earth would you say to 2 million seniors who make less than
$10,000 a year that you are not going to help them meet the cost of
their heating bills so that they have to choose between food,
prescription drugs, and heat. This is a merciless bill and you ought to
go back to the committee and start over.
Mr. VOLKMER. Mr. Chairman, will the gentleman yield?
Mr. OBEY. I yield to the gentleman from Missouri.
Mr. VOLKMER. I would just like to commend the gentleman both for the
motion and for his statement, and I would like to point out to the
gentleman and the Members of this body that on the home heating issue,
I live in northeast Missouri. We have a lot of senior citizens all over
northeast Missouri that are going to be impacted by this bill.
The CHAIRMAN. The Chair recognizes the gentleman from Louisiana [Mr.
Livingston] for 5 minutes.
(Mr. LIVINGSTON asked and was given permission to revise and extend
his remarks.)
Mr. LIVINGSTON. Mr. Chairman, I oppose the gentleman's motion, and I
urge this House to adopt this bill. Postponing the will of Congress,
delaying this effort for another 10 minutes, half an hour or whatever
is not going to have any effect. The American people have waited long
and hard for some common sense and wisdom in congressional handling of
their hard-earned money. For far too long, we have reached deeply into
their pockets, and we have seized the cash they have worked so hard
for, and we have consistently told them how it should be spent and why
they should be happy that we are spending it that way.
Mr. Chairman, the American people have waited too long for fiscal
sanity, and while this is only the first step, only the beginning, the
fact is that this bill, the largest rescission bill in the history of
this country, the largest rollback in previously appropriated funds by
a liberal spendthrift Congress, is the first step toward fiscal sanity
and a balanced budget and it must be taken. I urge that this motion be
rejected, that we go forward, and that we adopt this bill.
The CHAIRMAN. The question is on the preferential motion offered by
the gentleman from Wisconsin [Mr. Obey].
The question was taken; and the Chairman announced that the noes
appeared to have it.

Recorded Vote

Mr. OBEY. Mr. Chairman, I demand a recorded vote.
A recorded vote was ordered.
The CHAIRMAN. This will be a 17-minute vote.
The vote was taken by electronic device, and there were--ayes 187,
noes 228, not voting 19, as follows:
[Roll No. 247]

AYES--187

Abercrombie
Ackerman
Andrews
Baesler
Barcia
Barrett (WI)
Beilenson
Bentsen
Berman
Bevill
Bishop
Bonior
Borski
Boucher
Browder
Brown (CA)
Brown (FL)
Brown (OH)
Bryant (TX)
Cardin
Chapman
Clay
Clayton
Clement
Clyburn
Coleman
Condit
Conyers
Costello
Coyne
Cramer
Danner
de la Garza
Deal
DeLauro
Dellums
Deutsch
Dicks
Dingell
Dixon
Doggett
Doyle
Durbin
Edwards
Engel
Eshoo
Evans
Farr
Fattah
Fazio
Fields (LA)
Filner
Flake
Foglietta
Ford
Frank (MA)
Frost
Furse
Gejdenson
Gephardt
Geren
Gibbons
Gonzalez
Gordon
Green
Gutierrez
Hall (OH)
Hamilton
Harman
Hastings (FL)
Hefner
Hilliard
Hinchey
Holden
Hoyer
Jackson-Lee
Jacobs
Jefferson
Johnson (SD)
Johnston
Kanjorski
Kaptur
Kennedy (MA)
Kennedy (RI)
Kennelly
Kildee
Kleczka
Klink
LaFalce
Lantos
Laughlin
Levin
Lincoln
Lipinski
Lofgren
Lowey
Luther
Maloney
Manton
Markey
Martinez
Mascara
Matsui
McCarthy
McDermott
McHale
McKinney
McNulty
Meehan
Meek
Menendez
Miller (CA)
Mineta
Minge
Mink
Moakley
Mollohan
Montgomery
Neal
Oberstar
Obey
Olver
Ortiz
Orton
Owens
Pallone
Pastor
Payne (NJ)
Payne (VA)
Pelosi
Peterson (FL)
Peterson (MN)
Pickett
Pomeroy
Poshard
Rahall
Rangel
Reed
Reynolds
Richardson
Rivers
Roemer
Rose
Roybal-Allard
Rush
Sabo
Sanders
Sawyer
Schroeder
Schumer
Scott
Serrano
Sisisky
Skaggs
Skelton
Slaughter
Spratt
Stark
Stenholm
Stokes
Studds
Stupak
Tanner
Tejeda
Thompson
Thornton
Thurman
Torres
Torricelli
Towns
Traficant
Tucker
Velazquez
Vento
Visclosky
Volkmer
Ward
Waters
Watt (NC)
Waxman
Williams
Wilson
Wise
Woolsey
Wyden
Wynn
Yates

NOES--228

Allard
Archer
Armey
Bachus
Baker (LA)
Ballenger
Barr
Barrett (NE)
Bartlett
Barton
Bass
Bateman
Bereuter
Bilbray
Bilirakis
Bliley
Blute
Boehlert
Boehner
Bonilla
Bono
Brewster
Brownback
Bryant (TN)
Bunn
Bunning
Burr
Burton
Buyer
Callahan
Calvert
Camp
Canady
Castle
Chabot
Chambliss
Chenoweth
Christensen
Chrysler
Coble
Coburn
Collins (GA)
Combest
Cooley
Cox
Crane
Crapo
Cremeans
Cunningham
Davis
DeLay
Diaz-Balart
Dickey
Doolittle
Dreier
Duncan
Dunn
Ehlers
Ehrlich
Emerson
English
Ensign
Everett
Ewing
Fawell
Fields (TX)
Flanagan
Foley
Forbes
Fowler
Fox
Franks (CT)
Franks (NJ)
Frelinghuysen
Frisa
Funderburk
Gallegly
Ganske
Gekas
Gilchrest
Gillmor
Gilman
Goodlatte
Goodling
Goss
Graham
Greenwood
Gunderson
Gutknecht
Hall (TX)
Hancock
Hansen
Hastert
Hastings (WA)
Hayes
Hayworth
Hefley
Heineman
Herger
Hilleary
Hobson
Hoekstra
Hoke
Horn
Hostettler
Houghton
Hunter
Hutchinson
Hyde
Inglis
Istook
Johnson (CT)
Johnson, Sam
Jones
Kasich
Kelly
Kim
King
Kingston
Klug
Knollenberg
Kolbe
LaHood
Largent
Latham
LaTourette
Lazio
Leach
Lewis (CA)
Lewis (KY)
Lightfoot
Linder
Livingston
LoBiondo
Longley
Lucas
Manzullo
Martini
McCollum
McCrery
McDade
McHugh
McInnis
McIntosh
McKeon
Metcalf
Meyers
Mica
Miller (FL)
Molinari
Moorhead
Morella
Myers
Myrick
Nethercutt
Neumann
Ney
Norwood
Nussle
Oxley
Packard
Parker
Paxon
Petri
Pombo
Porter
Portman
Pryce
Quillen
Quinn
Radanovich
Ramstad
Regula
Riggs
Roberts
Rogers
Rohrabacher
Ros-Lehtinen
Roth
Roukema
Royce
Salmon
Sanford
Saxton
Scarborough
Schaefer
Schiff
Sensenbrenner
Shadegg
Shays
Shuster
Skeen
[[Page H3283]] Smith (MI)
Smith (NJ)
Smith (TX)
Smith (WA)
Solomon
Souder
Spence
Stearns
Stockman
Stump
Talent
Tate
Tauzin
Taylor (MS)
Taylor (NC)
Thomas
Thornberry
Tiahrt
Torkildsen
Upton
Vucanovich
Waldholtz
Walker
Walsh
Wamp
Watts (OK)
Weldon (FL)
Weldon (PA)
Weller
White
Whitfield
Wicker
Wolf
Young (AK)
Young (FL)
Zimmer

NOT VOTING--19

Baker (CA)
Baldacci
Becerra
Clinger
Collins (IL)
Collins (MI)
Cubin
DeFazio
Dooley
Dornan
Johnson, E.B.
Lewis (GA)
Mfume
Moran
Murtha
Nadler
Seastrand
Shaw
Zeliff

{time} 1044

Messrs. KENNEDY of Massachusetts, EDWARDS, FOGLIETTA, and MEEHAN
changed their vote from ``no'' to ``aye.''
Mr. CRAPO changed his vote from ``aye'' to ``no.''
So the preferential motion was rejected.
The result of the vote was announced as above recorded.
personal explanation

Mr. BALDACCI. Mr. Chairman, I was at a meeting with a delegation and
missed rollcall No. 247. Had I been here, I would have voted in the
negative.

personal explanation
Mr. BECERRA. Mr. Chairman, I was unavoidably detained this morning
and was not on the floor when rollcall vote 247 was taken. This was the
motion offered by Mr. Obey to strike the enacting clause. Had I been
here, I would have voted ``aye.''
amendment offered by mr. shays

Mr. SHAYS. Mr. Chairman, I offer an amendment listed in the March 13
Congressional Record as amendment No. 70.
The CHAIRMAN. The Clerk will designate the amendment.
The text of the amendment is as follows:

Amendment offered by Mr. Shays: Page 50, beginning on line
6, strike ``$186,000,000 shall be from amounts earmarked for
housing opportunities for persons with AIDS;''.
Conform the aggregate amount set forth on page 49, line 14,
accordingly.
Page 54, line 18, strike ``$38,000,000'' and insert
``$224,000,000''.

Mr. OBEY. Mr. Chairman, I reserve a point of order on the amendment.
The CHAIRMAN. The gentleman from Wisconsin [Mr. Obey] reserves a
point of order.
Is the gentleman opposed to the amendment as well?
Mr. OBEY. Mr. Chairman, I reserve a point of order on the amendment,
Mr. Chairman, and I claim the time in opposition.
The CHAIRMAN. The gentleman from Connecticut [Mr. Shays] will be
recognized for 15 minutes, and the gentleman from Wisconsin [Mr. Obey]
will be recognized for 15 minutes.
The Chair recognizes the gentleman from Connecticut [Mr. Shays].
Mr. DeLAY. Mr. Chairman, I also reserve a point of order on this
amendment.
The CHAIRMAN. The distinguished majority whip, the gentleman from
Texas [Mr. DeLay] reserves a point of order on the amendment.
Mr. SHAYS. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself such time as I may consume to
speak in support of an amendment to restore $186 million for people
with AIDS, housing for people with AIDS.
Mr. Chairman, the purpose of this amendment is to restore a cut that
was made in the Committee on Appropriations that basically eliminated
all 1995 appropriations for HOPWA. This is the funding that enables
people throughout the country who are providing those with AIDS with
housing.
We have Ryan White funds, and that provides services for people with
AIDS, but HOPWA provides the housing for people with AIDS, Mr.
Chairman.
Mr. Chairman, I yield 5 minutes to the gentleman from Illinois [Mr.
Flanagan].
Mr. FLANAGAN. Mr. Chairman, I rise in support of the Shays amendment
and commend my colleague, Congressman Christopher Shays, for his
leadership on this issue.
Mr. Chairman, I have volunteered as a counselor for PWA's at the
Howard Brown Memorial Center in Chicago. I have seen those suffering
from this devastating disease die. I have seen those unfortunate enough
to have contracted AIDS ostracized and abandoned by family and friends
alike. I know the cruelty of AIDS and how that cruelty extends beyond
the horrific parameters of the disease itself.
For many PWA's there is no place to turn, no place to go, no place to
think of as home during their precious waning moments of time on Earth.
Like victims of the Black Death in the 14th century, and those sent to
leper colonies in the 19th and early 20th centuries, PWA's often are
brutally ostracized by family and community alike.
The AIDS patients I have known and counseled did not want to be a
burden to society. That was never their intent. But, many have been
economically destroyed, and have seen the last of their financial
resources, because of this crippling disease. AIDS patients are ravaged
not just physically and economically, but mentally, socially, and
politically as well. These are people truly in need.
When all else fails, and personal resources are exhausted, the
Government has a proper role to play in assisting those in need, those
who can no longer help themselves. It is for this reason that I truly
believe it necessary to restore the $186 million in funding for housing
opportunities for PWA's. These are people who desperately need our
help. They have nowhere else to turn.
A decade and a half ago AIDS was unknown. Now, we have just recently
seen the latest statistics that show that today, AIDS is the No. 1
killer for all Americans aged 25 to 44. Among our younger population,
it ranks as the sixth leading killer for those between ages 15 to 24.
Among women, AIDS is the fourth leading killer, but it is expected to
rise some time in the next few years to the No. 2 position. Overall,
AIDS has leapt up to become the eighth leading cause of death in
America.
At the end of last year, the death toll from AIDS for the United
States was 270,870. Although there is nothing that can be done for
those who have already passed on, there is something that can be done
for those who are still with us. We can help provide them with housing
opportunities. We can support the Shays amendment.
PWA's suffer a lonely existence. Their inability to be
institutionalized assures it. While it is difficult to know exactly
what the total cost of institutionalization would be on a yearly basis,
I am certain that moneys spent for housing opportunities for PWA's
would be far less.
In fact, the statistics I have seen show that the average daily cost
of an AIDS acute care bed is $1,085. Providing housing and services to
AIDS patients in a residential setting, however, costs between one-
tenth to one-twentieth less than acute care. According to the Human
Rights Campaign Fund, by using a residential setting, the use of
emergency health care services is thereby cut by $47,000 per person per
year.
It is tragic to me that there are studies that show that about 30
percent of the people with HIV disease are in acute-care hospitals due
to the fact that no community based housing alternative is available
for them. Without restoration of the $186 million for housing
opportunities for people with AIDS, 50,000 more people could either
wind up on the streets or also in costly acute care beds.
Homelessness and costly beds are not acceptable solutions to the
housing problem for PWA's. The Shays amendment is.
To those who say there is not public support for helping people with
AIDS, I suggest they look at the latest bipartisan poll, taken in late
February 1995, by the highly respected Republican polling firm the
Tarrance Group and the well regarded Democrat polling firm Lake
Research. The results of their polling shows that an overwhelming 77
percent of the people want to maintain or increase Federal funding for
the care of PWA's.
As a Republican, I was intrigued to find out that of the people
polled, 66 percent of Republican men and over 70 percent of Republican
women support Federal AIDS funding at the current levels or above. Rest
assured, however, my interest in helping PWA's does not come as a
consequence of any poll. My long record on this issue surely speaks for
itself. By citing the Terrance-Lake poll I only wish to make the point
that there is support for Federal assistance for PWA's among members of
my party.
Based on my own experience in counseling AIDS patients, I firmly
believe
[[Page H3284]] that restoring the $168 million for housing
opportunities for PWA's is a necessity. It saves money for the American
taxpayer. Equally as important, it saves dignity for those suffering
from the cruel consequences of AIDS by giving them a home during their
dwindling moments with us.
Mr. Chairman, I support the Shays amendment without hesitation or
reservation. I urge my colleagues to do the same.
Mrs. LOWEY. Mr. Chairman, I rise in support of this amendment. The
cuts in this bill to the HOPWA Program, which this amendment restores,
will be devastating to thousands of individuals with AIDS and their
families.
In New York City alone, almost 1,000 people living with AIDS would be
in danger of being put out onto the streets if these funds are
rescinded. And make no mistake, Mr. Chairman, the costs to society of
throwing 1,000 persons with AIDS out onto the streets are far greater
than the cost of providing them with housing. Hospitals are, by law,
prohibited from denying emergency medical care, and it should come as
no surprise that these individuals without housing will turn to
hospitals. The average cost of hospital care for people with AIDS is 10
times the cost of home care.
AIDS is a public health emergency, and we should treat it as such.
The HOPWA Program is cost-effective and humane, and its elimination
will result in greater costs to our entire social network. It will tax
our already overcrowded hospital system, and will leave members of one
or our Nation's most vulnerable populations homeless.
It is estimated that while someone can live for 10 years with AIDS,
the life expectancy for a person with AIDS who is homeless is 6 months.
Mr. Chairman, eliminating this program would be cruel and unusual
punishment to AIDS patients and their families who are already
suffering immensely. The HOPWA Program will save money and keep
families together. Support the Shays amendment.
Mrs. KENNELLY. Mr. Chairman, I rise in strong support of the Shays
amendment to restore vital assistance to one of our Nation's most
vulnerable groups--people living with AIDS. In the absence of a cure or
an effective treatment, the HOPWA Program provides what AIDS patients
need most--a home, a place to restore their strength and hope.
In my own State of Connecticut, perhaps 25,000 people are HIV-
positive; of these, close to 5,000 have AIDS. Yet decent affordable
housing is in drastically short supply. In 1993, for example, there
were 309 requests for housing in Hartford; yet only 21 individuals and
4 families with children were accommodated. Statewide, in the same
year, only 141 of 1,000 requests for housing could be filled.
Mr. Chairman, I could argue against cutting HOPWA because the amount
of money involved in vanishingly small in the vast sea of the budget
deficit. I could argue against it on the grounds that it actually saves
money, making it possible for people to leave hospitals and go to much
less expensive housing. But the most telling argument, I believe, is
that penalizing the most vulnerable in our society is simply wrong. We
are a better country than that. We can do better than that. And I urge
my colleagues to do so. Support this amendment.
The CHAIRMAN. Does the gentleman from Wisconsin [Mr. Obey] wish to
press or withdraw his reservation of a point of order?
Mr. OBEY. Mr. Chairman, I withdraw my reservation. I would also
withdraw my request to manage time against the amendment. I thought the
gentleman was offering a different amendment, and I do not have an
objection to this amendment.
The CHAIRMAN. Does any other Member insist on a point of order at
this time?
Mr. LIVINGSTON. Mr. Chairman, I reserve a point of order on the
amendment.
The CHAIRMAN. The gentleman from Louisiana [Mr. Livingston] is
recognized on his point of order.
Mr. LIVINGSTON. Mr. Chairman, I will not make a point of order, but I
would like to address a colloquy to the gentleman from Connecticut.
The CHAIRMAN. Is the gentleman from Louisiana requesting time in
opposition to the amendment?
Mr. LIVINGSTON. I am asking for the time, Mr. Chairman.
The CHAIRMAN. The gentleman from Louisiana [Mr. Livingston] will be
recognized for 15 minutes.
The Chair recognizes the gentleman from Louisiana [Mr. Livingston].
Mr. LIVINGSTON. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself such time as I may
consume.
Mr. Chairman, I shall not use the 15 minutes. I would just like to
extend my congratulations to the gentleman from Connecticut. I know he
cares deeply about this subject, and he has struggled long and hard in
an attempt to get this matter heard.
I know he has great reservations about the mark in subcommittee and
full committee on this particular program. I have spoken with the
subcommittee chair, and I know that he likewise feels strongly about
his position.
I have to tell the gentleman that, in terms of research, aside from
housing, but in terms of research, I looked at the figures recently on
AIDS. I found that this country spends $1,000 per afflicted patient on
AIDS recipients, about $500 per afflicted patient on cancer recipients,
as little as $25 per afflicted patient for those with Parkinson's
disease, and a little bit more than that for those afflicted with
Alzheimer's. So there is an imbalance on research.
I dare say that on housing and the like, AIDS patients get more than
their share of money when compared to other afflicted patients.
Now, that does not intend to minimize the suffering that people
undergo if they are afflicted with AIDS. It does not diminish the
intensity of the concern that the gentleman from Connecticut and all
those who support his bill feel for people who are truly in suffering.
I would suggest or I would ask the gentleman, if I might have the
gentleman's attention, I would ask the gentleman to consider
withdrawing this amendment at this time and I will assure the gentleman
that he will get full representation and a full opportunity to discuss
the matter with those of us in conference. While I cannot concede any
position to the gentleman on the part of the conferees, I would just
like to ask the gentleman to withdraw his amendment, and I would simply
assure the gentleman that I would be happy to discuss with the
gentleman his points in favor of this provision, and I personally would
be happy to bring it up at the conference.
Mr. LEWIS of California. Mr. Chairman, will the gentleman yield?
Mr. LIVINGSTON. I yield to the gentleman from California.
Mr. LEWIS of California. Mr. Chairman, I appreciate my colleague
yielding.
I want the Members to understand very clearly that this rescission
did not reflect in any way, shape, or form a lack of concern for this
problem. This Member takes no back seat to any Member regarding this
issue.
I introduced the first resolution regarding evaluating strategies to
deal with this problem in 1980 before most people knew what the problem
was. I supported the first funding regarding research in this subject
area years ago. The reality is that between 1992, in this program, and
1994, we accumulated $306 million in this program. As of this moment,
86 percent of that money has not been spent.
It is a program in disarray because of a lack of effective
management. Even with the rescission, money to meet fiscal year 1995
needs will remain available.
Mr. LIVINGSTON. Reclaiming my time, and I think I control the time, I
would like to yield to the gentleman, could the gentleman elaborate on
that? Has the gentleman inquired why they have not adequately spent the
money? Is the program not being administered properly?
Mr. LEWIS of California. If the gentleman will yield further, it is
suggested that HOPWA has complexities that cause time delays in the
effective delivery of the money. The reality is that a whole array of
programs for the disabled are mismanaged. There is duplication of
management and an abundance of bureaucratic maneuvering.
We are simply in this amendment moving forward the President's
proposal to eventually consolidate those efforts, and in turn
recognizing that there is $267 million in the pipeline that will not be
spent in 1995. So it is a very appropriate time for us to force
reexamination, and that truly is what this amendment is about.
Mr. LIVINGSTON. Reclaiming my time, I would only want to congratulate
the gentleman from California for his statement. I know he has the
utmost sensitivity. I know all of the members of the subcommittee and
the
[[Page H3285]] full committee have tremendous sensitivity for the
subject at hand.

{time} 1100

But we are in difficult times, and we have to understand that lots of
people are suffering. There is much suffering in the world. We are
doing the best we can to spread the resources that we have around to
those who are afflicted. We would like to do it with an even hand.
Mr. Chairman, I would like to reserve the balance of my time and
tender back the opportunity to the gentleman from Connecticut [Mr.
Shays] to control his time.
The CHAIRMAN. Does any Member insist on a point of order?
Mr. DeLAY. Mr. Chairman, I would like to reserve my point of order.
The CHAIRMAN. The Chair would ask the gentlemen to insist upon or
withdraw their points of order at this time in order to conserve debate
time.
Mr. LIVINGSTON. Mr. Chairman, I withdraw my point of order.
The CHAIRMAN. The gentleman from Louisiana [Mr. Livingston] withdraws
his point of order.
Mr. SHAYS. Mr. Chairman, I have a question to ask of the Chair, a
parliamentary inquiry.
The CHAIRMAN. The Chair would recognize the gentleman from
Connecticut [Mr. Shays]. Does the gentleman ask unanimous consent to
withdraw his amendment?
Mr. SHAYS. No, I do not ask that. I have a parliamentary inquiry
before I make that decision.

parliamentary inquiry

Mr. SHAYS. Mr. Chairman, I have a parliamentary inquiry.
The CHAIRMAN. The gentleman will state his parliamentary inquiry.
Mr. SHAYS. Mr. Chairman, I want to be up front with every Member on
both sides, even if I do not happen to agree with them.
I want the opportunity to use my 15 minutes to state the case on this
issue. If the gentleman withdraws his point of order, is he allowed to
bring it up in the future?
The CHAIRMAN. The Chair will not insist upon the gentleman from Texas
[Mr. DeLay] insisting upon or withdrawing his point of order at this
time. He may continue his reservation if he wishes.
With that ruling, the Chair recognizes the gentleman from Connecticut
[Mr. Shays] on the remainder of his 15 minutes.
Mr. SHAYS. I thank the Chair.
My understanding is that I have 9 minutes remaining. Is that correct?
The CHAIRMAN. The gentleman from Connecticut [Mr. Shays] has 9
minutes remaining on his time.
Mr. SHAYS. Mr. Chairman, before yielding to my colleague, the
gentleman from Wisconsin [Mr. Gunderson], and then to the gentleman
from New York [Mr. Schumer], I would like to just point out that we are
really talking about three issues. We are talking about AIDS research.
My colleague is right in saying that we have spent a great deal of
money on AIDS research, without the kind of payback we would like. We
then talk about AIDS services and the Ryan White funds, to respond to
that in a very sincere and serious way. Where we have a deficiency is
housing for people with AIDS. We are housing people in hospitals at
$1,000 a day instead of $100 or less for people with AIDS in housing
for people with AIDS. This is what this amendment is attempting to
address. I want to say to my colleague, the gentleman from California
[Mr. Lewis], I do not know of any greater champion on this issue. He
has taken a hit he does not deserve.
The purpose of this amendment brought forth by many people is in no
way to embarrass Mr. Lewis, because, frankly, he is not deserving of
some of the criticism he has received.
Mr. Chairman, 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. I thank the gentleman for yielding this time to me.
Mr. Chairman, I want to make three or four quick points that people
need to understand. The difference between AIDS and every other disease
that has been mentioned is AIDS is the only infectious disease of all
of these that was mentioned by the distinguished chairman of the
committee.
But, second, I think we need to understand what HOPWA is all about.
Ladies and gentlemen, this is emergency housing for people, in most
cases, in the final stages of AIDS who finally have been disowned by
their parents, they have no place to go because of their sexual
orientation. If you want to put these kinds of individuals on the
street or in hospitals under Medicaid, it costs much greater. You need
to understand what you are doing.
What we are pleading with the committee for is a commitment that we
will not zero out fiscal year 1995 HOPWA funds. We can deal with the
issue of emergency housing and Ryan White reauthorization for 1996
later on this year, but you cannot in good conscience zero out the
fiscal year 1995 funds.
The gentleman from California said, ``Well, there is some money in
the pipeline.'' This is just exactly like the money that is in the
pipeline in the Pentagon because this housing requires that the money
be there, you then make the grant application, do the permits, you get
the approval, you do the construction. So if we are going to say if you
do not spend it all in 1 year you are not going to get it, we are going
to have to--we have to totally revise the Pentagon budget. There is no
difference systematically.
I plead with our colleagues, we have got to get a commitment we will
not zero out the fiscal year 1995 HOPWA funds.
Mr. SHAYS. Mr. Chairman, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from New
York [Mr. Schumer].
Mr. SCHUMER. I thank the gentleman for yielding this time to me.
I thank the gentleman not only for yielding the time but for his
leadership on this issue.
HOPWA is an extremely important program, offered by the gentlewoman
from California [Ms. Pelosi] and myself several years ago. It has been
remarkably successful.
As the gentleman from Wisconsin pointed out, not only is it humane,
these are people who are dying and who will be on the streets, but it
is also cheaper. It is a lot cheaper to have someone in one of these
HOPWA facilities than in a hospital where it costs far more, $500,
$600, $700, $800 a day, to keep them. They are not treated in a way
that is as humane, and it is more expensive.
As for the gentleman from California [Mr. Lewis]--and I greatly
respect his leadership on this issue--I would say to him that the
reason the moneys are not expended is that 97 percent of the 1994
dollars have been authorized and appropriated. The reason they are not
spent is because the groups have 3 years to do it, to build the housing
and get the facility ready. It is like defense, any program with a long
buildout. The money will be spent over the next few years. The 1995
moneys have not been allocated, because the Department of housing just
put together a State-by-State analysis.
So I would appeal to him and others on his side to allow this
amendment to go forward. It is a compassionate amendment. It saves
dollars. This is not an issue of politics. This is a simple issue of
compassion and decency, and I hope we could allow the vote to go
forward.
Mr. Chairman, I yield to my colleague, the gentleman from New York
[Mr. Nadler].
The CHAIRMAN. The gentleman from Connecticut [Mr. Shays] controls the
time.
Mr. SCHUMER. Mr. Chairman, I was yielding the remainder of my 2
minutes to the gentleman from New York [Mr. Nadler].
The CHAIRMAN. The gentleman must remain standing.
Mr. NADLER. I thank the gentleman for yielding to me.
Mr. Chairman, this is a vital amendment. The HOPWA Program providing
funds for housing for people with AIDS, for people who are dying, not
only will save money, does save money, as my colleague from New York
says, it provides money for housing for people who are dying who would
otherwise be on the streets.
In my district, which is probably the epicenter of the AIDS epidemic,
it is absolutely vital, and I urge its adoption.

[[Page H3286]]

Mr. SHAYS. Mr. Chairman, I yield 1 minute to the gentleman from New
York [Mr. Lazio].
Mr. LAZIO of New York. Mr. Chairman, I want to thank the gentleman,
my friend, the gentleman from Connecticut, and I rise in support of
this amendment. I understand the difficult job that my colleagues on
the Committee on Appropriations are laboring under in their effort to
move toward a balanced budget, one that I share.
But I have to say this is one area we should not be cutting. In terms
of HUD, there are 204 programs in HUD. And with the zeroing out of this
program, there will be no other place for these people to receive
funding. As my colleagues have said, there is a long spendout between
authorization and construction to get these projects on line; they are
completely correct.
At the same time, we are making dramatic reductions in the tenant-
based section 8 program. So those people do not go on the waiting list
and get a section 8 portable voucher to try to relieve their housing
problem.
So my friends are right. Some of these people--families--are going to
end up on the streets, they are going to die on the streets, and the
other alternative is to have them in far more expensive institutional
settings such as hospitals.
So I rise in strong support of this amendment.
Mr. SHAYS. Mr. Chairman, I yield 1 minute to the gentlewoman from
California [Ms. Pelosi].
Ms. PELOSI. I thank the gentleman for yielding this time to me. I
thank the gentleman from Connecticut [Mr. Shays] also for his
leadership on this issue.
I would like to address my remarks to the Chair, noting that I am
pleased the chairman of the full committee is here, because what the
purpose of what we are doing in the rescission bill is to reduce the
deficit. I contend and maintain that to cut these funds will increase
the deficit.
Our colleagues have pointed out that the reason we found this
situation, Mr. Schumer, Mr. McDermott, and I, in the authorization was
a number of years ago was to enable the private sector, the nonprofit
sector, to minister to the needs of those with HIV and AIDS to prevent
them from becoming homeless. Stress on the immune system is the worst
possible thing you can do. Homelessness increases stress.
So this enables the continuum of services to be provided to people
with HIV and AIDS; it keeps them out of hospitals, it eliminates the
necessity for them to have other kinds of assistance, including income
support.
I think if our goal is to reduce the deficit, we can do so by
restoring these funds.
Mr. Chairman, it is also a compassionate thing to do.
The CHAIRMAN. The gentleman from Connecticut [Mr. Shays] has 2\1/2\
minutes remaining, and the gentleman from Louisiana [Mr. Livingston]
has 10 minutes remaining.
Mr. SHAYS. I thank the Chair. I appreciate the graciousness of the
chairman of the Committee on Appropriations for letting us proceed, and
also the majority whip.
Mr. Chairman, I yield 30 seconds to my colleague, the gentleman from
Kentucky [Mr. Ward], a former Peace Corps volunteer.
Mr. WARD. I thank the gentleman for yielding this time to me.
Mr. Chairman, we need to support this. We need always to remember
that we are not talking about some people whom we will never meet.
These are our sons, our daughters, our uncles, our aunts, our uncles,
sisters, our brothers.
It will cost more to do it without making the changes this amendment
purposes.
I rise in support of the amendment.
Mr. SHAYS. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself the remainder of my time.
Mr. Chairman, I want to conclude by making a few very basic points.
I arrived in this House in 1987 at the death of Stewart McKinney.
Stewart McKinney died of AIDS. There is a real hero in this country
named Lucie McKinney.
Lucie McKinney has devoted her life to people with AIDS.
She was not a public person while her husband was a congressman. She
became a very public person. She works tirelessly night and day on this
issue of, not AIDS research, not AIDS services, but providing homes for
people with AIDS.
This has not been an easy task for her, because we have so many
people who are on our streets, without homes, dying of AIDS.
Occasionally and quite often they find themselves spending their last
days in a hospital, at $1,000 a day.
Lucie McKinney provides this housing for them for one-tenth of that
cost, with the help of the State, with the help of the Federal
Government, and with the help of so many volunteers and people who
contribute.
Mr. Chairman, this cause matters to me. It matters to many people in
this Chamber. I sincerely believe cutting out the 1995 funds is a
mistake, and it is a misunderstanding that this issue is continually
being reviewed.
It is also my understanding that I could have had a Member, any
Member here, raise a point of order at any time, and they had the
graciousness to allow us to continue.
At this time I would just like to ask the Chairman of the Committee
on Appropriations to clarify with me his request that I withdraw this
amendment.
The CHAIRMAN. The time of the gentleman from Connecticut [Mr. Shays]
has expired.
The gentleman from Louisiana [Mr. Livingston] maintains time.
The Chair recognizes the gentleman from Louisiana. [Mr. Livingston].
Mr. LIVINGSTON. I thank the chairman.
I would say to the gentleman from Connecticut [Mr. Shays] that if it
is his intention to withdraw this amendment and if in fact he withdraws
his amendment, that I would be happy to work with the gentleman and all
of the people who have risen today to address this matter in
conference.
Obviously, we cannot go forward today because I am confident that a
point of order will be raised if in fact the gentleman persists in his
motion. But should he withdraw it, I will work with him and work with
the other body, and we will attempt to resolve the issue at least
partially, if not in whole, to his satisfaction.
Mr. SCHUMER. Mr. Chairman, will the gentleman from Louisiana [Mr.
Livingston] yield?
Mr. LIVINGSTON. I yield to the gentleman from New York.
Mr. SCHUMER. I thank the gentleman for yielding to me.
Mr. Chairman, I understand that the gentleman from Louisiana had said
before that he would not object, and I understand there may be other
objectors on his side. But this is such an important issue, it is a
program that has worked with so little waste. I would ask others on the
other side not to object and to allow this amendment to go forward. It
seems to me there was a real mistake here made when they zeroed out the
entire program. I would hope that we could moves this amendment forward
in a bipartisan air of compassion and understanding as to what this is
all about.
Mr. LIVINGSTON. Reclaiming my time, I have to tell the gentleman I
have made my position clear. I cannot speak for all of the Members in
the House. Any single Member has the right to make a point of order.
Therefore, I must again relay my offer to the gentleman. If he will
withdraw, I will work with him. If he does not withdraw, then I cannot
make the same offer.
Mr. Chairman, I would be delighted to yield, but think we have to
move this because we have two or three other amendments that we must
address before time runs out.
Mr. Chairman, I yield back the balance of my time.
The CHAIRMAN. Does the gentleman from Texas [Mr. DeLay] desire to
press or withdraw his point of order?

{time} 1115

Mr. SHAYS. Mr. Chairman, based on the dialog that has taken place in
this instance with the chairman, and based on the courtesy of this
House for allowing me to proceed on an amendment that could have been
declared out of order, I ask unanimous consent to withdraw this
amendment.
The CHAIRMAN. Is there objection to the request of the gentleman from
Connecticut?
Mr. STUDDS. Mr. Chairman, reserving the right to object, I rise for
two reasons: First of all, to commend the gentleman from Connecticut
[Mr.
[[Page H3287]] Shays] who is carrying a very heavy burden in a very
difficult place, and simply to remind Members that this is not a
request for a proportionate share of bearing the burden of reductions
amongst all our programs, that this is not a 2-percent, or a 5-percent,
or a 10-percent cut. We are talking about people who are fatally ill
and who have no home, and we are not asking them to share 2 percent or
5 percent of the pain we all have to share; we are asking them to go
away and to die in the streets, and we are asking for zero funding.
Mr. Chairman, in Boston this means 244 people sick and homeless. That
is unacceptable, and I object.
The CHAIRMAN. Objection is heard.

Point of Order

Mr. DeLAY. Mr. Chairman, I have a point of order.
The CHAIRMAN. The gentleman will state his point of order.
Mr. DeLAY. Mr. Chairman, the gentleman's amendment seeks to amend a
paragraph previously amended, and the procedures in the U.S. House of
Representatives, chapter 27, section 27.1, states the following:

It is fundamental that it is not in order to amend an
amendment previously agreed to. Thus the text of a bill
perfected by amendment cannot thereafter be amended.

Mr. Chairman, this amendment seeks to amend text previously amended,
and is, therefore, not in order. I respectfully ask the Chair to
sustain my point of order.
The CHAIRMAN. Does any other Member wish to be heard on the point of
order?
Mr. SCHUMER. Mr. Chairman, I would submit that this is not out of
order.
Mr. Chairman, what we have done here is in submission with the rule.
We have taken money from an existing program. It is a program that was
cut before. It is within the same walls, the VA-HUD appropriation. This
is a narrowly restricted rule.
Mr. Chairman, the gentleman from Connecticut [Mr. Shays] and I worked
long and hard, and we checked over and over again with the
Parliamentarian to make this amendment, even within the confines of
that terribly restrictive rule, to be in order because of the urgency
of this program, and I would say that if an amendment like this which,
A, cuts the same amount of money as it adds; B, cuts it from a program
within the VA-HUD authorization/appropriation; and, C, cuts it from a
program that has already been cut, is not in order, then in God's name
what is, in this body, on this bill?
Ms. PELOSI. Mr. Chairman, I wish to be heard on the point of order. I
wish to state that if the point of order of the gentleman from Texas
[Mr. DeLay] is in order, that just points to the ultra-restrictiveness
of the rule under which this bill was brought to the floor because we
did abide by----
Mr. DeLAY. Regular order, Mr. Chairman.
The CHAIRMAN. The gentlewoman from California will state her
objection.
Ms. PELOSI. My objection is, as the gentleman from New York [Mr.
Schumer] pointed out, that the amendment is in keeping with those
criteria that were set out by the Committee on Rules that funds come
from the same title and the same subcommittee allocation. The amendment
does do that, and it would seem to me that it would be out of order to
call a point of order against it on that score. If, in fact, it is so,
it just again points to the restrictiveness of the rule when we are
used to open rules on appropriations bills.
The CHAIRMAN. Does any other Member wish to be heard on the point of
order?
Mrs. LOWEY. Mr. Chairman, I wish to be heard on the gentleman's point
of order.
The CHAIRMAN. The gentlewoman will state her point.
Mrs. LOWEY. This to me just seems so unreasonable. This was taken out
of the budget, it was taken out of the appropriate account. Not to be
allowed to take a vote on this issue, considering the devastating
impact of this on cities, on people----
Mr. DeLAY. Regular order, Mr. Chairman.
The CHAIRMAN (Mr. Bereuter). The Chair is prepared to rule.
Under the precedents recorded in section 31 in chapter 27 of
Deschler's procedure, the point of order of the gentleman from Texas
[Mr. DeLay] is sustained. It is consistent with the Chair's ruling
yesterday on the amendment offered by the gentlewoman from Connecticut
[Ms. DeLauro].
Parliamentary Inquiry

Mr. OBEY. Mr. Chairman, I would ask the Chair:
If I am not mistaken, the last three amendments that have been
offered to this bill have come from the majority side of the aisle.
Would it be possible for me to call up an amendment at this time?
The CHAIRMAN. Yes, the members of the committee have precedence, and
it would be the minority's turn for recognition.
The Chair recognizes the gentleman from Wisconsin [Mr. Obey] to offer
an amendment.

Amendment Offered by Mr. Obey

Mr. OBEY. Mr. Chairman, I offer an amendment.
The CHAIRMAN. The Clerk will designate the amendment.
The text of the amendment is as follows:

Amendment offered by Mr. Obey: Page 25, line 12, strike
``$82,775,000'' and insert ``$72,775,000''.
Page 26, line 4, strike ``$50,000,000'' and insert
``$60,000,000''.

Mr. LIVINGSTON. Mr. Chairman, I reserve a point of order on the
amendment.
The CHAIRMAN. The gentleman from Louisiana [Mr. Livingston] reserves
a point of order on the amendment.
Mr. OBEY. Mr. Chairman, let me indicate that I am offering this
amendment on behalf of the gentleman from Pennsylvania [Mr. Foglietta]
who is the real author of the amendment.
The CHAIRMAN. The gentleman from Wisconsin [Mr. Obey] is recognized
for 15 minutes, and a Member opposed will be recognized for 15 minutes.
Mr. LIVINGSTON. Mr. Chairman, I ask at the appropriate time to be
recognized.
The CHAIRMAN. The gentleman from Louisiana [Mr. Livingston] will be
recognized for 15 minutes.
Does the gentleman from Louisiana insist on his point of order at
this time?
Mr. LIVINGSTON. Not at this time. I reserve my point of order, Mr.
Chairman.
The CHAIRMAN. The Chair recognizes the gentleman from Wisconsin [Mr.
Obey].
Mr. OBEY. Mr. Chairman, I yield 5 minutes to the gentleman from
Pennsylvania [Mr. Foglietta].
Mr. FOGLIETTA. Mr. Chairman, I rise today to offer an amendment to
restore funding for the Healthy Start Program. This small, Federal
program is a proven success story in saving the lives of our Nation's
infants. Healthy Start provides critical funds to cut down on high
infant death rates in urban and rural communities across the country,
from Philadelphia to Pee Dee, SC, from Milwaukee to the Mississippi
Delta. Healthy Start provides education, prenatal care, clinical
services and home health visits to pregnant mothers and their new
babies.
My colleagues, the important part about this program is that it
works. In my district, infant mortality rates are as high as Mexico or
Panama. Before Healthy Start began, 14.2 Philadelphia babies died for
every 1,000. After just 1 year, the rate has fallen to 11.7, when the
national average is 8.9.
The rescissions package takes away $10 million of fiscal year 1995
funds for this life-saving program. Yet, every dollar makes the
difference between life and death for babies in these communities. Not
one baby's life should be scarified for the sake of paying for a tax
cut package. We cannot let this happen.
I am proposing to restore funds for Healthy Start by taking an
additional $10 million from the Buildings and Facilities account of the
National Institutes of Health. I am told that the funds in this account
will not be used as intended. The rescissions package takes back $50
million from this account. I am simply proposing to take an additional
$10 million to fully fund this Health Start Program. I emphasize that
none of the lifesaving activities of the NIH will be hindered by this
additional rescission.
In cities like New Orleans and Oakland, in places like Northern
Plains, SD and the Mississippi Delta, Healthy
[[Page H3288]] Start has just started to do the job. Let us finish the
job of saving infants' lives by restoring this program of full funding.
I urge my colleagues to accept this amendment.
Mr. VOLKMER. Mr. Chairman, will the gentleman yield?
Mr. FOGLIETTA. I yield to the gentleman from Missouri.
Mr. VOLKMER. Mr. Chairman, the gentleman is telling the Members of
the House that this program, which to me in a very mean-spirited way is
being cut by the majority, is actually to the benefit of infants and
children.
Mr. FOGLIETTA. The gentleman is correct.
Mr. VOLKMER. And, no question, by cutting it they are saying that it
is all right to do this to the infants and children of people here in
the United States; is that correct?
Mr. FOGLIETTA. I would not speak for the majority, but I assume that
is what the bottom line is.
Mr. VOLKMER. That is what happens; is it not?
Mr. FOGLIETTA. The gentleman is correct.
Mr. VOLKMER. And there is no question in the gentleman's mind and my
mind that somewhere along the line this very same committee is going to
fund programs that are going to take care of infants and children in
other parts of the world?
Mr. FOGLIETTA. The gentleman is correct.
Mr. VOLKMER. So it is all right to take care of them someplace else,
but we cannot do it for our own people. We have got to cut them out.
Our people have to make all these sacrifices, and no one else does. We
are going to take care of the rest of them, but we are not going to
take care of our own.
Is that correct?
Mr. FOGLIETTA. Mr. Chairman, I believe we should be taking care of
our own; that is correct.
The CHAIRMAN. The time of the gentleman from Pennsylvania [Mr.
Foglietta] has expired.
The Chair would inquire of the gentleman from Louisiana [Mr.
Livingston] if he intends to press or withdraw his point of order.
Mr. LIVINGSTON. Mr. Chairman, if the gentleman has completed his
time, I do intend to insist on my point of order.
The CHAIRMAN. The gentleman will state his point of order.
Mr. LIVINGSTON. Mr. Chairman, I make a point of order against the
amendment offered by the gentleman from Wisconsin [Mr. Obey] because it
seeks to amend the paragraphs previously amended. In the procedures in
the U.S. House of Representatives, chapter 27, section 27.1, states----
Mr. VOLKMER. Mr. Chairman, would the gentleman yield for just a
second?
Mr. FOGLIETTA. Mr. Chairman, will the gentleman suspend his point of
order so I can yield to the gentleman from Missouri?
Mr. LIVINGSTON. Mr. Chairman, with the Chair's consent I suspend my
point of order.
Mr. Chairman, I continue to reserve my point of order.
The CHAIRMAN. The gentleman may yield then for an inquiry.

parliamentary inquiries

Mr. LIVINGSTON. Mr. Chairman, as I understand it, the time of the
gentleman from Pennsylvania had expired.
The CHAIRMAN. The gentleman from Louisiana controls the time.
Mr. LIVINGSTON. I have a further parliamentary inquiry, Mr. Chairman.
Are there any other allocations of time asked for on the floor at the
moment?
The CHAIRMAN. Only the gentleman from Louisiana [Mr. Livingston] and
the gentleman from Wisconsin [Mr. Obey] control time.
Mr. LIVINGSTON. Then at this point, Mr. Chairman, I reserve my point
of order.
Mr. OBEY. Mr. Chairman, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from
Pennsylvania [Mr. Foglietta].
Mr. FATTAH. Mr. Chairman, will the gentleman yield?
Mr. FOGLIETTA. I yield to the gentleman from Pennsylvania.
Mr. FATTAH. Mr. Chairman, I rise to support the amendment offered by
the gentleman from Pennsylvania [Mr. Foglietta]. The program, the
Healthy Start Program, has literally saved lives. There are children
who are alive today who otherwise would not be alive. It is something
that people on both sides of the choice question support. It is an
effort to intervene in meaningful ways to provide care and information
and education to would-be parents, particularly women who are about to
conceive children. It is a program that has worked in Philadelphia.
Mr. Chairman, I know that the point of this exercise is to show how
much we can cut out of this budget. It is interesting that we could not
find any dollars from the military to cut even though we spend more
than the rest of the world combined on our Armed Forces. We could not
find in any of the billions in corporate welfare any room to cut, but
somehow we have zeroed in on children, we have zeroed in on Healthy
Start, on college scholarships, on summer job programs. Somehow we have
made an aggressive effort to retard much of the progress being made in
terms of intervening in the lives of young people, to make their lives
more meaningful and more purposeful.

{time} 1130

Yes, it costs to care, and education is indeed expensive. I would
argue that lack of caring and ignorance is more expensive, and that we
should, in this case, support the Foglietta amendment and hopefully
restore this cut to Healthy Start. Failing to do that, as I have
indicated yesterday, we should vote against the entire rescissions
package.
Mr. OBEY. Mr. Chairman, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from Ohio
[Mr. Stokes].
Mr. STOKES. Mr. Chairman, I thank the distinguished ranking member of
the Committee on Appropriations for yielding.
Mr. Chairman, this is a program that we really ought to support and I
thank the gentleman from Pennsylvania [Mr. Foglietta] who has offered
this amendment. Under this rescission funding for Healthy Start has
been cut $10 million. This program provides resources and assistance to
rural and urban communities with high infant mortality rates.
A few days ago over on that same subcommittee we had six Nobel
laureates who sat before us and talked about the state of health in
America today. One of the things that they talked about to us was the
high infant mortality rates in this country today. While infant
mortality rates is a matter of being able to rate a nation in terms of
its total health care, our Nation ranks about 17th in the world. Here
we are, the top country in the world, yet we rank about 17th in the
world in terms of infant mortality rates.
Under these cuts, what is going to happen is that about 2,200
pregnant women would not receive primary care, 33,000 prenatal visits
would be eliminated, 3,000 pediatric appointments would be eliminated,
5,800 clients would not receive child care, 3,267 clients would not
receive skill in job training.
This is an area in which many of our local and rural communities have
been able to deal with one of the most pressing problems confronting
their communities. I would hope that we would restore these funds and
support the gentleman from Pennsylvania in this very important
amendment.
Mr. OBEY. Mr. Chairman, I yield 1 minute to the gentleman from
Pennsylvania [Mr. Foglietta].
Mr. FOGLIETTA. Mr. Chairman, I just want to emphasize, in the city of
Philadelphia, before this program started, the infant mortality rate
was 14.2 per thousand. After 1 year, 1 year of this program, it dropped
from 14.2 per thousand to 11.7 per thousand.
On behalf of the children whose lives will be saved in the future
with this program, I implore you to withdraw your point of order and
let us pass this amendment.
Mr. KENNEDY of Massachusetts. Mr. Chairman, I rise to support the
restoration of Healthy Start funding. The fact that the Republicans cut
this program is cruel and shortsighted. This is, by far, the lowest,
mean-spirited assault on the most vulnerable of our citizens--newborn
babies and infants.
It is absolutely intolerable that the United States has one of the
highest infant mortality rates in the entire world.
In fact, the United States ranks 21st out of 23 industrialized
countries or infant mortality. The mortality rate for minority children
in our inner cities ranks behind many third-world nations.
[[Page H3289]] To combat this alarming rate of death among newborns,
we developed the Healthy Start Program. The Healthy Start Program
provides the only link to the health care system for countless pregnant
women.
The severity of the Nation's infant mortality problem is evident in
the city of Boston. African-American women experience infant mortality
rates more than twice that of white women.
Fortunately, these Healthy Start programs work. We have already begun
to see the results. In Boston, this program helped deliver over a 12
percent decrease in infant mortality from 1992 to 1993.
Boston's goal is to build on this progress and reduce the infant
deaths by 50 percent by 1996.
We should not take away vital funds from cities that are saving
lives.
Just last week, I visited a Healthy Start Program in my hometown of
Boston. At Boston Children's Hospital, the Advocacy for Women and Kids
in Emergencies--or the AWAKE Program--responds to the need for services
for battered women who come to Children's Hospital to get care for
their abused kids.
It is the only program of its kind nationwide providing a full range
of advocacy and outreach services to battered women and their kids in a
hospital setting.
Mr. Chairman, to see family violence through the eyes of a child is
heartbreaking.
Every day, at least three children die because of abuse or neglect,
often at the hands of a family member.
In 1993, nearly 3 million child abuse and neglect cases were
reported.
It makes absolutely no sense to cut 10 percent of Healthy Start
funding--funding that supports so many innovative programs like AWAKE
that help save the lives of newborn babies and infants.
I urge support of this amendment.
Mr. MOAKLEY. Mr. Chairman, I rise today in strong support of this
amendment offered by my good friend, the gentleman from Philadelphia
[Mr. Foglietta], which would restore $10 million in funding for the
Healthy Start Program. The Healthy Start Program is essential to combat
the disturbingly high rate of infant mortality in this country. In
Boston, where I represent, infant mortality is a significant health
problem despite the presence of the world's best hospitals, medical
schools, and academic health centers. This is a travesty that a rich,
industrialized nation like the United States has an infant mortality
rate that is equal or higher than some third-world countries.
If you are a young, black, pregnant woman in Boston, the odds of your
baby being born prematurely or with low birth weight nearly doubles.
The Boston Healthy Start initiative has been working in conjunction
with community health centers throughout the city to reduce this
alarming infant mortality rate. This program is crucial in that it
provides pre- and post-natal care to pregnant women that are at risk.
Healthy Start educates young mothers about proper nutrition for both
them and their newborns. Healthy start also teaches mothers about
appropriate health care. But, most important, Mr. Chairman, Healthy
Start empowers women, families, and communities. This program is a
modest investment from the Federal Government to building a healthier
climate for all people in urban areas and the best way to build that
climate is to give our children a healthy start.
I find it ironic that my good friends from the other side of the
aisle claim they want to cut waste and cut programs that don't work,
but they never seem to bat an eye at throwing $41 billion at some comic
book weapons fantasy like star wars. I implore my Republican friends to
have a little forethought, for once, and invest in our kids. I realize
they don't vote or take you out for dinner or contribute to your
campaigns, but children are the future of this country. Remember that,
and vote in favor of the Foglietta amendment.
The CHAIRMAN. Does the gentleman from Louisiana [Mr. Livingston]
insist on his point of order?
Mr. LIVINGSTON. I do, Mr. Chairman.
The CHAIRMAN. The gentleman will state his point of order.

point of order

Mr. LIVINGSTON. Mr. Chairman, the gentleman makes an eloquent case,
which will be addressed in conference, but at this time I reluctantly
make a point of order against the gentleman's amendment because it
seeks to amend a paragraph previously amended. In the procedures in the
U.S. House of Representatives, chapter 27, section 27.1, it states as
follows: It is fundamental that it is not in order to amend an
amendment previously agreed to. Thus the text of a bill perfected by
amendment cannot thereafter be amended.
Mr. Chairman, this amendment seeks to amend text previously amended
and is therefore not in order. I respectfully ask the Chair to sustain
my point of order.
The CHAIRMAN (Mr. Bereuter). The Chair is prepared to rule, because
it is exactly similar to the previous ruling. The gentleman's language
attempts to amend further a figure changed by the amendment offered by
the gentleman from Illinois [Mr. Porter], yesterday. Under the
precedents recorded at section 31 in chapter 27 of Deschler's
Procedure, the point of order of the gentleman from Louisiana [Mr.
Livingston] is sustained. It is consistent with the Chair's ruling on
the DeLauro and Shays amendments.
Mr. ABERCROMBIE. Mr. Chairman, I appeal the ruling of the Chair.
The CHAIRMAN. The question is, Shall the decision of the Chair stand
as the judgment of the Committee.

parliamentary inquiry

Mr. OBEY. Mr. Chairman, I have a parliamentary inquiry.
The CHAIRMAN. The gentleman will state it.
Mr. OBEY. Will I be able under these circumstances to ask the
gentleman from Hawaii to withdraw his motion?
The CHAIRMAN. The Chair will allow the gentleman from Wisconsin to
make an inquiry of the gentleman from Hawaii.
Mr. OBEY. Mr. Chairman, let me state I fully share the gentleman's
outrage that this amendment is not in order, but I do not think that
there is any useful purpose to be served by taking out on the Chair the
fact that we have a stupid rule. I think all the Chair is doing is
enforcing an extremely stupid, ill-advised, vicious, and cruel rule. So
I will recognize the justice in what the gentleman from Hawaii is
trying to do, but I think it is good if we have the right target, which
is the Republican leadership, and not the Member in the Chair.
I would urge the gentleman respectfully to withdraw the motion.
The CHAIRMAN. Does the gentleman from Hawaii [Mr. Abercrombie] insist
on his appeal?
Mr. ABERCROMBIE. Mr. Chairman, I do insist on my appeal.
Respectfully, I am not targeting the Chair. The people of this country
are being targeted.
Mr. STEARNS. Mr. Chairman, I move to table the motion.
The CHAIRMAN. A motion to table is not in order in the Committee of
the Whole.
The question is ``Shall the decision of the Chair stand as the
judgment of the Committee?''
The question was taken; and the Chairman announced that the ayes
appeared to have it.
Mr. ABERCROMBIE. Mr. Chairman, I demand a recorded vote, and pending
that, I make the point of order that a quorum is not present.
The CHAIRMAN. Evidently, a quorum is not present.
Pursuant to the provisions of clause 2, rule XXIII, the Chair
announces that he will reduce to a minimum of 5 minutes the period of
time within which a vote by electronic device, if ordered, will be
taken on the pending question following the quorum call. Members will
record their presence by electronic device.
The call was taken by electronic device.
The following Members responded to their names:
[Roll No. 248]

Abercrombie
Ackerman
Allard
Andrews
Archer
Armey
Bachus
Baesler
Baker (CA)
Baker (LA)
Baldacci
Ballenger
Barcia
Barr
Barrett (NE)
Barrett (WI)
Bartlett
Barton
Bass
Bateman
Becerra
Beilenson
Bentsen
Bereuter
Berman
Bevill
Bilbray
Bilirakis
Bishop
Bliley
Blute
Boehlert
Boehner
Bonilla
Bonior
Bono
Borski
Boucher
Brewster
Browder
Brown (CA)
Brown (FL)
Brown (OH)
Brownback
Bryant (TN)
Bryant (TX)
Bunn
Bunning
Burr
Burton
Buyer
Callahan
Camp
Canady
Cardin
Castle
Chabot
Chambliss
Chenoweth
Christensen
Chrysler
Clay
Clayton
Clement
Clinger
Clyburn
Coble
Coburn
Coleman
Collins (GA)
Collins (IL)
Combest
Condit
Conyers
Cooley
Costello
Cox
Coyne
Cramer
Crane
Crapo
Cremeans
Cunningham
Danner
Davis
de la Garza
Deal
DeFazio
DeLauro
DeLay
Dellums
Deutsch
Diaz-Balart
Dickey
Dicks
Dingell
Dixon
Doggett
Dooley
Doolittle
Dornan
Doyle
Dreier
Duncan
Dunn
Durbin
Edwards
Ehlers
[[Page H3290]] Ehrlich
Emerson
Engel
English
Ensign
Eshoo
Evans
Everett
Ewing
Farr
Fattah
Fawell
Fazio
Fields (LA)
Fields (TX)
Filner
Flake
Flanagan
Foglietta
Foley
Forbes
Ford
Fowler
Fox
Franks (CT)
Franks (NJ)
Frelinghuysen
Frisa
Frost
Funderburk
Furse
Gallegly
Ganske
Gejdenson
Gekas
Gephardt
Geren
Gibbons
Gilchrest
Gillmor
Gilman
Gonzalez
Goodlatte
Goodling
Gordon
Goss
Graham
Green
Greenwood
Gunderson
Gutierrez
Gutknecht
Hall (OH)
Hall (TX)
Hamilton
Hancock
Hansen
Harman
Hastert
Hastings (FL)
Hastings (WA)
Hayes
Hayworth
Hefley
Hefner
Heineman
Herger
Hilleary
Hilliard
Hinchey
Hobson
Hoekstra
Hoke
Holden
Horn
Hostettler
Houghton
Hoyer
Hunter
Hutchinson
Hyde
Inglis
Istook
Jackson-Lee
Jacobs
Jefferson
Johnson (CT)
Johnson (SD)
Johnson, Sam
Johnston
Jones
Kanjorski
Kaptur
Kasich
Kelly
Kennedy (MA)
Kennedy (RI)
Kennelly
Kildee
Kim
King
Kingston
Kleczka
Klink
Klug
Knollenberg
Kolbe
LaFalce
LaHood
Lantos
Largent
Latham
LaTourette
Laughlin
Lazio
Leach
Levin
Lewis (CA)
Lewis (KY)
Lightfoot
Lincoln
Linder
Lipinski
Livingston
LoBiondo
Lofgren
Longley
Lowey
Lucas
Luther
Maloney
Manton
Manzullo
Markey
Martinez
Martini
Mascara
Matsui
McCarthy
McCollum
McCrery
McDade
McDermott
McHale
McHugh
McInnis
McIntosh
McKeon
McKinney
McNulty
Meehan
Meek
Menendez
Metcalf
Meyers
Mfume
Mica
Miller (CA)
Miller (FL)
Mineta
Minge
Mink
Moakley
Molinari
Mollohan
Montgomery
Moorhead
Moran
Morella
Murtha
Myers
Myrick
Nadler
Neal
Nethercutt
Neumann
Ney
Norwood
Nussle
Oberstar
Obey
Olver
Ortiz
Orton
Owens
Oxley
Packard
Pallone
Parker
Pastor
Paxon
Payne (NJ)
Payne (VA)
Pelosi
Peterson (FL)
Peterson (MN)
Petri
Pickett
Pombo
Pomeroy
Porter
Portman
Poshard
Pryce
Quillen
Quinn
Radanovich
Rahall
Ramstad
Rangel
Reed
Regula
Reynolds
Richardson
Riggs
Rivers
Roberts
Roemer
Rogers
Rohrabacher
Ros-Lehtinen
Rose
Roth
Roukema
Roybal-Allard
Royce
Rush
Sabo
Salmon
Sanford
Sawyer
Saxton
Scarborough
Schaefer
Schiff
Schroeder
Schumer
Scott
Seastrand
Sensenbrenner
Serrano
Shadegg
Shaw
Shays
Sisisky
Skaggs
Skeen
Skelton
Slaughter
Smith (MI)
Smith (NJ)
Smith (TX)
Smith (WA)
Solomon
Souder
Spence
Spratt
Stark
Stearns
Stenholm
Stockman
Stokes
Studds
Stump
Stupak
Talent
Tanner
Tate
Tauzin
Taylor (MS)
Taylor (NC)
Tejeda
Thomas
Thompson
Thornberry
Thornton
Thurman
Tiahrt
Torkildsen
Torres
Torricelli
Towns
Traficant
Tucker
Upton
Velazquez
Vento
Visclosky
Volkmer
Vucanovich
Waldholtz
Walker
Walsh
Wamp
Ward
Waters
Watt (NC)
Watts (OK)
Weldon (FL)
Weldon (PA)
Weller
White
Whitfield
Wicker
Williams
Wilson
Wise
Wolf
Woolsey
Wyden
Wynn
Yates
Young (AK)
Young (FL)
Zeliff
Zimmer

{time} 1157

The CHAIRMAN. Four hundred twenty-four Members have answered to their
names, a quorum is present, and the Committee will resume its business.
The pending business is the demand of the gentleman from Hawaii [Mr.
Abercrombie] for a recorded vote on his appeal from the ruling of the
Chair.
Does the gentleman from Hawaii [Mr. Abercrombie] insist upon his
demand for a recorded vote?
Mr. ABERCROMBIE. I do not, Mr. Chairman.
The CHAIRMAN. If not, the decision of the Chair stands sustained on
the prior voice vote of the Committee of the Whole.
amendment offered by mr. stearns

Mr. STEARNS. Mr. Chairman, I offer an amendment, amendment No. 23.
The Clerk read as follows:

Amendment offered by Mr. Stearns: Page 22, line 13, strike
``$5,000,000'' and insert ``$15,000,000''.

The CHAIRMAN. The Chair will announce that there will be 20 minutes
of debate, 10 minutes on each side.
The gentleman from Florida [Mr. Stearns] will be recognized for 10
minutes to control the time on his amendment.
Does any Member stand in opposition to the amendment?
Mr. OBEY. Mr. Chairman, I will indicate opposition to the amendment.
I ask unanimous consent that the 10 minutes in opposition be divided
evenly between the gentleman from Illinois [Mr. Yates] and the
gentleman from Ohio [Mr. Regula].
The CHAIRMAN. Is there objection to the request of the gentleman from
Wisconsin?
There was no objection.

{time} 1200

Mr. STEARNS. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself such time as I may consume.
I appreciate the opportunity to have this amendment finally. We have
been waiting quite some time for it. I want to recognize the gentleman
from Illinois [Mr. Crane] for all the hard work he has done on this
amendment and the gentleman from Georgia [Mr. Barr] who has also been
instrumental in getting this amendment on the floor. I also want to
recognize the gentleman from Illinois [Mr. Yates] who is the ranking
member of the Interior Subcommittee. He and I have talked about this.
He and I are good friends. We approach this particular amendment from
different perspectives.
Mr. Chairman, many members have heard this discussion on the NEA ad
infinitum. We could talk about it for hours. I know the gentleman from
Illinois [Mr. Yates] has plenty of people on his side as I do on my
side who feel strongly about this subject. But I can summarize this
debate very quickly for all of us, because we do not have much time.
First the NEA is about $167 million in expenditure. We have cut
within the rescission bill $5 million. This amendment simply asks for
an additional $10 million. That means a total of $15 million would be
cut from the NEA budget, less than 10 percent, approximately only 9
percent total.
My colleagues, remember, this has to go to the conference committee.
Traditionally, historically, when it goes to the conference committee,
they cut it even further down. So I say to my friends here in the
House, let's make at least a modicum of a cut, 9 percent total, so if
it goes to conference and it comes back, we will not be left like we
did last year with a 2.5 percent reduction after we labored for hours
on the House floor to get just a mere 5 percent.
At this point, I say to Members, this can be summarized, this is
simply a 9-percent cut on a $167 million project that under anybody's
opinion we can cut that much if we intend to reduce the deficit.
I know the people on that side feel very strongly about this, and I
respect that, but I am approaching this from a fiscal responsibility
stand point and I urge the people on that side not to use hyperbole on
this debate. We have heard this time and time again. This is simply a
9-percent cut.
Mr. Chairman, I reserve the balance of my time.
Mr. YATES. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself such time as I may consume.
Mr. Chairman, here we go again. All we have to do is mention NEA and
my friends, the gentleman from Illinois [Mr. Crane] and the gentleman
from Florida [Mr. Stearns], go into orbit. They are determined to
immortalize Maplethorpe and Serrano, to make them as famous as
Michelangelo in order to kill the NEA, which I think essentially is
what they want to do.
The gentleman from Florida [Mr. Stearns] says his amendment is a 9-
percent cut. On the contrary, for remainder of this year, with the time
remaining and the amount of funds that are remaining, it amounts to a
17-percent cut, but really when they talk about Maplethorpe and
Serrano, which is the fundamental stain that bases their amendments.
How many people saw the Maplethorpe and Serrano exhibit under NEA
grants? Not many. Serrano was shown at one gallery, a South Carolina
gallery. Maplethorpe at two galleries, three museums. How many people
got to see these exhibits? And yet, because of Maplethorpe and Serrano,
the sponsors of this amendment want to take NEA funds from hundreds of
museums throughout the country serving millions of
people from scores of symphony orchestras and theaters and
[[Page H3291]] schools where children learn about art and about
artists.
Let me read to the gentleman from Florida [Mr. STEARNS] and the
gentleman from Illinois [Mr. Crane] an article from The Washington Post
which occurred on February 12. It is about the executive director of
the Shenandoah Shakespeare Express, a Shakespeare troupe that tours
two-thirds of the United States.
Last year, the NEA gave the Shenandoah Shakespeare Express $5,000 and
the money helped take a fellow, ``The Taming of the Shrew,'' ``Much Ado
About Nothing,'' to more than 100 high schools and colleges in more
than 30 States.
It is true, most Americans do not associate the NEA with kids
learning to love Shakespeare and that is because one Senator and others
have created the compelling fiction that all the agency does is to fund
kookie and depraved artists.
Well,

But here is the real story. Our little Shakespeare company,
says the executive director, got $5,000, not much, but 33
times more than the human Etch-A-Sketch and our grant, not
his, is typical of the NEA. By far the majority of NEA money
goes to local theater groups to, community orchestras, to
regional museums, what you might call the traditional art.
Conservatives often complain about the evils of popular
culture, the sex in movies, the violence in rap, the
profanity in rock lyrics, but they have targeted the NEA and
that is the organization that most assures the continuation
of the classical theater, the classical dance and the music
in this MTV world. You have to wonder.

Mr. Chairman, there is no doubt in my mind that NEA is part of the
fabric of the people of this country, worn by the people of this
country, and I think the people of this country are firm in the desire
that NEA continue. I hope this amendment will be defeated.
Mr. Chairman, I reserve the balance of my time
Mr. STEARNS. Mr. Chairman, I yield 3 minutes to the gentleman from
Illinois [Mr. Crane].
Mr. CRANE. I thank my colleague the gentleman for yielding me the
time.
Mr. Chairman, I rise is support of the amendment. We just heard the
eloquent plea for the arts from my distinguished colleague from my home
State of Illinois. Yet it misses the point altogether. The fact of the
matter is we have an arts bureaucracy in this government entity called
the National Endowment for the Arts. That government bureaucracy only
awards one recipient out of every four that makes an application.
If we look at where those applications or those grantees are, I can
understand why a colleague from the State of New York might be for
preservation of the NEA in perpetuity. I can understand why somebody
from California might take the same position, and I understand why
somebody from Washington, DC, especially, would want to see it
preserved.
The fact of the matter is, I say to my colleague from Illinois,
Washington, DC is, you probably do not realize this, a hub of artistic
talent, and they get twice the grants that our whole State of Illinois
gets. Yet they have fewer people in Washington, DC, than in your
congressional district or my congressional district. In fact,
Washington, DC, gets more in grants than Arkansas, Idaho, Kansas,
Mississippi, Nevada, North Dakota, Oklahoma, South Carolina, South
Dakota, and Wyoming combined. That goes to Washington, DC.
That is what goes to Washington, DC thanks to this arts bureaucracy
and how they are manipulating public moneys and misallocating public
moneys.
Keep in mind another thing, too. That last year the private sector
anted up $9.3 billion to fund the arts, in contrast to a $167 million
input at taxpayer expense through this wheeling and dealing operation I
touched upon.
A single art auction up in New York, for example, brought in $269.5
million. For all I know, some of my artistic colleagues from New York
may have participated. In addition to that, a single painting alone
last year managed to get $82.5 million.
I submit to Members that this is an issue that needs to be addressed.
I hope it will be addressed more fully when we get to the question of
total funding. That is later in the year. But right now this is a very
modest cut when we are asked to reallocate scarce resources and we have
heard eloquent appeals as to where money should be going other than the
way the committee has determined. I compliment the gentleman on his
amendment and urge everyone to support it.
announcement by the chairman

The CHAIRMAN. The Chair announces that under the rule, we must rise
at 12:18. We have 11\1/2\ minutes of allocated time. I advise the
Members there will be insufficient time to have the entire quota.
Mr. DICKS. Mr. Chairman, I ask unanimous consent that we have 3
additional minutes to make the time.
The CHAIRMAN. That request is not in order in the Committee of the
Whole.
Mr. STEARNS. Mr. Chairman, could we have the allocation of the time
based upon the Chair's stipulation at this point?
The CHAIRMAN. The Chair suggests and, without objection, will reduce
the amount from the two sides equally, 1\1/2\ minutes from the
gentleman from Florida and 1\1/2\ minutes from the two gentleman
combined.
There was no objection.
The CHAIRMAN. The Chair recognizes the gentleman from Ohio [Mr.
Regula].
Mr. REGULA. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself 1 minute and 50 seconds.
(Mr. REGULA asked and was given permission to revise and extend his
remarks.)
Mr. REGULA. I just want to advise Members of the situation. In the
subcommittee, we took out $5 million from NEA, remembering last year we
cut it 2 percent on the floor and sustained that in the conference.
That $5 million comes out of individual grants. There will be no money
left in the NEA for individual grants which have been the problem.
None. Zero.
If this amendment is passed, this will have to come out of the grants
all over the United States to small communities with symphonies,
ballet, and museums. It will mean the concert on the mall on the Fourth
of July and Memorial Day, I hope many Members have seen it on C-SPAN,
it is a great thing. Basically, if you vote for this amendment, you are
voting against those small amounts that reach out across the United
States for educational programs, for the small groups within the
communities, for the grants to the State arts commissions. You are not
voting against individual grants. We have already eliminated all the
money for the individual grants in the subcommittee which was ratified
by the full Committee on Appropriations.
The Committee on Educational and Economic Opportunities will have to
hear the question of reauthorizing the NEA, so that is the place to
deal with the problem. If we do not want NEA, we do not have to
reauthorize it for fiscal year 1996 and prospectively. But let us not
cut out that little bit of money that is being spread across the United
States to many of the things that you cherish in each of your
respective communities.
Mr. STEARNS. Mr. Chairman, I yield 1 minute to the gentleman from
Georgia [Mr. Barr] who has worked on this amendment.
Mr. BARR. Mr. Chairman, I thank my distinguished colleague from the
State of Florida for yielding me time.
With regard to an earlier amendment last evening, my distinguished
colleague, the gentleman from Pennsylvania [Mr. Walker], said really
what we are about here today is making choices on priorities. In the
greater scheme of things, I think there are very few, at least I would
hope there are very few in this Chamber that would disagree with the
proposition that in the larger scheme of things, when we are looking at
food and when we are looking at national defense and when we are
looking at the whole range of priorities that are reflected in this
rescission bill, funds for the NEA do not rank as high as the other
provisions.
That is one reason, one of many reasons why I rise in support of this
amendment which I have coauthored. I would also point out to my
distinguished colleague from the State of Illinois that the NEA does
fund works of so-called art that have titles that cannot even be
repeated on the floor of this Chamber. We do not need that. The
citizens of this country and my district do not need that. They do not
want that.
[[Page H3292]] {time} 1215

That is why I think it is very appropriate in the larger scheme of
things and based on the merits of this rescission that this amendment
be adopted.
I thank the gentleman for yielding time to me.
The CHAIRMAN. The Chair will announce that he is going to allocate
the time based upon the time reduction, a slight deduction equally
shared, one-half minute for the gentleman from Illinois [Mr. Yates], 1
minute for the gentleman from Florida [Mr. Stearns], and three-quarters
of a minute for the gentleman from Ohio [Mr. Regula].
Mr. YATES. Mr. Chairman, I yield such time as she may consume to the
gentlewoman from New York [Mrs. Lowey].
(Mrs. LOWEY asked and was given permission to revise and extend her
remarks.)
Mrs. LOWEY. Mr. Chairman, I rise in opposition to this amendment. As
David McCullough said, it is like getting rid of the Navy because of
the Tailhook scandal.
Mr. Chairman, I rise in strong opposition to the amendment. I find it
tragically ironic that in this era of fiscal belt-tightening some are
trying to slash one of the wisest and cost-effective investments the
Federal Government makes in its citizens.
Eliminating funding for the NEA is a classic case of being pennywise
and pound-foolish. The total budget for the NEA costs each citizen only
65 cents a year, and yet it leverages more than $1 billion every year
from private donors.
The activity generated by the NEA produces a huge economic and
cultural impact on our society. In fact, a study by the Port Authority
of New York and New Jersey found that the total impact of the arts in
the New York metropolitan region was more than $10 billion a year.
All over America, artists, musicians, orchestras, dance companies,
theaters, and public schools rely on the National Endowment for the
Arts for essential support. Their work has enriched our communities and
our quality of life. This amendment will undermine many of these
organizations and do damage to our cultural heritage. It will take
funds of out of our schools and away from our children.
I urge my colleagues to heed the words of two witnesses at a recent
hearing before the Interior Appropriation Subcommittee: Ken Burns,
producer of the highly acclaimed ``Civil War'' and ``Baseball series''
on PBS, and David McCullough, Pulitzer Prize winning author of the
biography on Harry Truman.
Ken Burns declared emphatically that his Civil War series would not
have been possible without the Endowment's support. And David
McCullough pointed out that abolishing the NEA just because of a few
ill-conceived or offensive programs would be like abolishing the U.S.
Navy because of the Tailhook scandal. I couldn't have said it better
myself.
Mr. Chairman, this amendment will harm our Nation's schools and
damage our cultural heritage. It must be defeated.
Mr. YATES. Mr. Chairman, I yield such time as she may consume to the
gentlewoman from New York [Mrs. Maloney].
(Mrs. MALONEY asked and was given permission to revise and extend her
remarks.)
Mrs. MALONEY. Mr. Chairman, I rise in strong opposition to this
amendment.
Mr. Chairman, I rise in strong opposition to the Stearns amendment to
slash funding for the National Endowment for the Arts.
In many ways the Contract on America is a declaration of war. A war
on children, a war on consumers, a war on the environment, a war on
senior citizens. In their budget-cutting zeal, the new majority has
proposed $17 billion in rescissions for 1995, almost entirely from
programs that make the lives of ordinary Americans a little safer, a
little brighter.
The Republicans have structured this rescission bill to eliminate any
chance that we could even debate cuts to the bloated Defense budget.
The Pentagon, of course, has returned to its exalted status as a sacred
cow.
While they have taken defense off the cutting board, they're making
mincemeat out of the arts. The new leadership invests in that which
destroys, but destroys that which creates. The contract may sound good
on the surface, but its cost cutting rhetoric masks policies that are
heartless and mean-spirited.
And the contract's war on the arts is nothing short of primitive.
The NEA budget for this year is $167 million. Cultural funding is a
mere two ten-thousandths of 1 percent of the Federal Government's $1.5
trillion budget. Arts funding costs approximately 64 cents per capita,
or the same amount as two postage stamps.
According to a recent Lou Harris poll, 60 percent of the American
people believe that ``the Federal Government should provide financial
assistance to arts organizations.'' According to the same poll, more
than half the American people would support paying up to $15 a year to
support Federal arts funding.
Speaker Gingrich has attacked the NEA as providing patronage for an
elite group. In fact, the NEA increases access to arts and culture for
all citizens. In the 30 years since the endowments were created, the
number of theater, dance, and opera companies across America has
increased from 120 to 925.
NEA grants work as seed money. They make it easier for recipients to
raise money from other sources.
Speaker Gingrich and Majority Leader Dick Armey have both stated that
the Federal Government has no business making grants to artists and
artistic organizations.
They say this at a time when violence continues to increase and, in
our inner cities, human lives are cheaper by the dozen. I cannot
imagine a worse time to cut programs that exalt the human experience,
when all around us we see it degraded. Arts advocates who visited my
office this week described NEA grants they had received which were used
to create arts programs for inner city children.
We should be celebrating the contributions of the arts endowments to
our country today, rather than trying to destroy them. We should be
congratulating the endowments for encouraging creative ideas that help
poor children rise above their cruel circumstances.
As Christopher Reeve said Tuesday in his speech at the Arts Advocacy
Breakfast:

There is no leading nation in the world that does not
support the arts, usually two, three, ten times as much as we
do. Why should we be different? Public arts funding is a
concept that stands beside public education as an obligation
a government has to its people and to history.

Mr. YATES. Mr. Chairman, I yield such time as he may consume to the
gentleman from New York [Mr. Nadler].
(Mr. NADLER asked and was given permission to revise and extend his
remarks.)
Mr. NADLER. Mr. Chairman, I rise in opposition to this amendment.
Mr. Chairman, I rise in opposition to the amendment offered by the
gentleman from Florida which would rescind $15 million, in addition to
the $5 million rescission already in the bill, from the National
Endowment for the Arts' meager but important fiscal year 1995 budget.
We should increase or maintain current levels of Federal support for
the arts and humanities, not pull the foundation out from under
cultural projects in most communities throughout the Nation, which
benefit virtually every American.
I introduced an amendment to restore the $5 million to the NEA and $5
billion to the NEH which would be rescinded by this bill. With an
unreasonably restrictive rule and a mere 10 hours of debate on a bill
covering every Federal expenditure, my colleagues will not have the
opportunity to discuss the merits of maintaining the NEA and NEH
budgets. Some may say that during a time of drastic Federal cutbacks,
we should expect and accept reduced funding for the arts and
humanities. Drastic reductions in fiscal year 1995 appropriations to
the valuable programs funded through the NEA have already been made. It
is now time to look for somewhere else to cut.
The NEA exemplifies successful public-private cooperation, impressive
returns on a Federal investment, and an efficient and productive
Federal agency on a skeleton budget. With a budget totaling only a
fraction of 1 percent of the entire Federal budget each year since
1965, when the NEA was established, the Endowment has made a
substantial contribution to promoting art and culture in America. Since
the NEA was established, the number of symphony orchestras has grown
from 110 to 220, dance companies have shot up from 37 to over 250,
opera companies have increased from 56 to 420, and state arts agencies
are up from 5 to 565.
Congress should continue its important role of supporting arts,
culture and the humanities in America. I urge my colleagues to oppose
this amendment and any other attempts to undermine Federal commitment
to the arts.
Mr. YATES. Mr. Chairman, I yield such time as he may consume to the
gentleman from California [Mr. Dixon].
(Mr. DIXON asked and was given permission to revise and extend his
remarks.)
Mr. DIXON. Mr. Chairman, I rise in opposition to this amendment.
Mr. Chairman, I rise in opposition to H.R. 1158, the emergency
supplemental appropriations and rescissions bill. While I
wholeheartedly support the emergency supplemental to provide the
Federal Emergency Management Agency with additional funds necessary to
fulfill its mission--much of it for rebuilding in the aftermath of the
Northridge
[[Page H3293]] earthquake--I cannot support the massive reductions in
domestic Federal spending contained in this legislation.
A little over a year has passed since Congress recognized the dire
need for the Federal Government to intervene in the wake of the
Northridge earthquake. Less than a month following the quake, emergency
supplemental appropriations cleared both houses and was signed by the
President. Congress recognized the need to treat this funding as it had
in the past--as a national emergency, off-budget, and in bipartisan
fashion. What a difference a year makes.
The majority has now drastically altered the treatment of emergency
appropriations, requiring offsets in funding--even when those offsets,
as they do in this bill--cynically pit the general well-being of one
group of Americans against the well-being of another. While the
majority recognizes that further emergency expenditures are necessary
to rebuild Los Angeles' public infrastructure and respond to other
emergencies across the Nation, they now direct that this should be done
by undercutting programs which also serve those communities.
We are establishing a system under which a national disaster will
have devastating impacts on two distinct groups of Americans--the one
suffering the disaster and the one asked to pay for the disaster. It is
a perverse system.
Is there a need to reform the way in which we respond to natural
disasters in this country? Certainly, there is. The Bipartisan Task
Force on Disasters acknowledged as much in proposals to expand the
availability of disaster insurance, create a reinsurance fund, and
initiate a public-private partnership to finance disaster relief. Those
are the issues we should be debating, not funding disaster relief on
the backs of poor and low-income Americans.
The bulk of the rescissions in this bill do not go to covering the
needs of FEMA. They will now go to deficit reduction. While this is
preferable to their original intention to pay for tax cuts, it is
unconscionable that the majority in this House has sought to ask the
least able to make the greatest sacrifice.
The committee cuts $1.7 billion from the summer youth employment
program over the next 2 years--eliminating the program. While the
majority says that Americans should move off welfare and into the
workplace, that same majority contradicts itself by decimating programs
which encourage work experience.
The committee report states that ``this program is a lower-priority
Federal activity that we can no longer afford.'' What we cannot afford
is to defund a program which gives 600,000 kids per year their first
exposure to the workplace and a work ethic. It would seem to me that
the first step in achieving jobs-based welfare reform is exposing
underprivileged youth to their first job.
The Republican mayor of Los Angeles recognizes the importance of this
program. According to Mayor Riordan, ``the elimination of the Summer
Youth Employment and Training Program would have devastating
consequences for the children and youth of Los Angeles.'' Those
consequences include eliminating employment opportunities for more than
30,000 low-income youth in our city. To quote from the mayor's letter
to Chairman Livingston, ``the elimination of $22 million in fiscal year
1995 and fiscal year 1996 is cost ineffective, poses significant
challenges to our public safety goals and will ripple through our city
in a grim fashion.''
Forty-three percent of the cuts contained in this legislation fall on
programs within the Department of Housing and Urban Development. Public
housing funding is cut by $3 billion--nationally, 40 percent of these
units are occupied by the elderly. A $2.7 billion rescission in rental
assistance translates to a reduction of 70,000 rental vouchers and
certificates and 12,000 of those certificates had been reserved for
homeless women with children.
In its fiscal year 1996 budget submission, HUD has clearly indicated
its intention to dramatically reinvent the agency. Indeed that
reinvention is based on moving primarily to ``tenant-based'' rather
than ``project-based'' assistance. Yet over $1 billion in public
housing modernization funds are cut--funds critical to improving the
condition of units to enable HUD to implement its reforms.
In their zeal to cut, the majority bypasses the opportunity to have a
meaningful debate on the future of Federally assisted housing in this
country, including access to affordable housing, and housing for the
homeless.
Throughout this legislation there are reductions in funding and
elimination of programs in education, job training, veterans benefits,
and low-income fuel assistance which will cause severe hardship to
great numbers of Americans. Is there duplication and overlap in Federal
programs? Is there need for reform? Is there waste and inefficiency in
government bureaucracy? There may well be, but millions of Americans
have come to rely on those programs--some for the basic necessities of
life, others for their first shot at opportunity in this society.
In a reasonable and rationale atmosphere the American people would be
well-served by debating true consolidation and true reform. Reducing
and defunding these programs in this haphazard manner will only serve
to exacerbate the situation of low-income Americans, increase tensions
in our communities, and in the end, serve nothing but a political
agenda based on the devolution of the Federal Government. I urge defeat
of this legislation.
Mr. YATES. Mr. Chairman, I yield the remaining 30 seconds to the
gentleman from Montana [Mr. Williams].
Mr. WILLIAMS. My colleagues, I ask you to oppose this amendment. The
National Endowment for the Arts not only nurtures America's cultural
inheritance, but it also expands on our Nation's cultural activities.
Let me give examples. Before the National Endowment for the Arts,
there were 37 dance companies in America, now there are more than 400.
Before the NEA, there were 27 opera companies, now there are 120. The
list goes on. The NEA works. Resist these cuts.
The CHAIRMAN. The gentleman from Florida [Mr. Stearns] is recognized
for the final 1 minute.
Mr. STEARNS. Mr. Chairman, I yield 45 seconds to the gentlewoman from
Washington [Mrs. Smith].
Mrs. SMITH of Washington. Mr. Chairman, I thank the gentleman for
yielding time to me.
Mr. Chairman, we know what we are about today is the rescission
package. A rescission package is what do we take out of the budget
because it is extra. But it is beyond that today. What we really need
to talk about is the fact that we cannot charge this.
You see, we spend $200 billion extra a year and we are charging this
to my grandchildren. Let us take the high moral ground and say no to
extra spending for the nice things, but they are not necessary.
It is time to say yes to this amendment and get about what the people
told us to do, and that is get rid of the deficit.
The CHAIRMAN. The gentleman from Ohio [Mr. Regula] is recognized for
the final 25 seconds.
Mr. STEARNS. Mr. Chairman, a point of information: Do I have the
opportunity to close the debate?
The CHAIRMAN. The gentleman from Ohio [Mr. Regula] is defending the
committee position, and he will have the opportunity to close. The
gentleman from Florida [Mr. Stearns] may proceed for 25 seconds.
Mr. STEARNS. Mr. Chairman, for this amendment to pass, it is going to
require conservative Democrats to help out with the Members on this
side of the aisle. The question is can we cut a Federal Government
program by 9 percent, realizing that within $167 million, $26 million
is for Federal administration.
Surely we can cut the money within this program when it only adds up
to 9 percent. So the Members on both sides of the aisle, I appeal to
their fiscal responsibility and sanity, let us cut this bill.
The CHAIRMAN. The gentleman from Ohio [Mr. Regula] is recognized for
the final 1 minute.
Mr. YATES. Mr. Chairman, will the gentleman yield?
Mr. REGULA. I yield briefly to the gentleman from Illinois.
Mr. YATES. Mr. Chairman, I just want to make a correction of the
gentleman's statement, and that is that the real effect of this is a
26-percent cut.
Mr. REGULA. Mr. Chairman, how much time do I have remaining?
The CHAIRMAN. The gentleman from Ohio has 45 seconds remaining.
Mr. REGULA. Mr. Chairman, I yield the balance of my time to the
gentleman from New York [Mr. Houghton].
Mr. HOUGHTON. Mr. Chairman, I would just like to say this: that I
have been in business for 40 years, and business is a cost-cutting
process. I have cut and I have cut, but the one thing you do not cut is
those things that are quintessential to the very essence of the
community in which you live. Everything tends to drag us down to the
lowest common denominator.
Please do not cut the National Endowment.
Mr. RICHARDSON. Mr. Chairman, this amendment cripples the National
Endowment for the Arts.
Before my colleagues think about cutting funding for the NEA I want
to remind you that
[[Page H3294]] Federal arts funding benefits every district in the
country. The national endowment benefits every region in the United
States through State grants, arts education, and anticrime programming.
Thirty-five percent of NEA funding goes to each State's art agency in
the form of a block grant. This amendment automatically reduces the
size of each States grant.
Of this 35 percent each State must spend 7.5 percent of these dollars
on projects that serve rural, urban, and underserved communities.
In New Mexico--for the last 7 years State grant moneys have funded
the churches project. Over 100 communities have restored their historic
churches because of the cultural and artistic symbolism they represent.
Voting in favor of this amendment means no arts education for our
children.
Last year a $22,000 grant to the chamber music residencies pilot
project which placed chamber music ensembles in rural communities for a
school year. The chamber ensembles taught children in public schools in
Tifton, GA; Jesup, IA, and Dodge City, KS, who would not have otherwise
had any music education.
Voting in favor of this amendment means reduced funding for crime
control programs. A youngster with a paint brush or learning lines for
a play is a lot less dangerous than one with a gun.
NEA anticrime funds provide for programs like Arizona's APPLE Corps
which uses arts programs with antidrug messages as after-school
alternatives. Other anticrime projects the endowment funds include:
Voices of Youth throughout Vermont, First Step Dance Co. in Lawrence,
KS, Boise Family Center project in Boise, ID, Arts in Atlanta project,
Alternatives in L.A. Program, and the Family Arts Agenda in Salem, OR.
Instead of targeting programs that are wasteful and bloated, this
amendment targets programs that improve the quality of life for every
American.
And it cuts these dollars not to go for deficit reduction but--to a
windfall for the richest 10 percent of our Nation.
What voting for this amendment ensures is that the richest 10 percent
of our country will be the only ones that can ever be able to afford to
see an opera, a Shakespeare play, to hear an orchestra.
Ms. SLAUGHTER. Mr. Chairman, today I rise in strong opposition to the
Crane amendment. As chair of the arts caucus, I have watched in
amazement year after year, as the pittance that the National Endowment
for the Arts receives from the Federal budget is consistently
denigrated, incorrectly characterized, and almost always cut. And all
this from an agency whose entire budget is below what is allocated for
military bands.
While Federal funding for the arts, and art agencies like the
National Endowment for the Arts, make up a mere 0.02 percent of the
national budget, for each $1 the NEA spends, $11 of activity results.
The nonprofit arts industry alone contributes $36.8 billion to the U.S.
economy and provides over 1.3 million jobs to Americans nationwide.
Business, tourism, restaurants, and hotels strive on the arts. The
annual audience for nonprofit theaters serve an audience that has grown
from 5 million in 1965 to over 20 million in 1992. More Americans
attend art events annually than they attend professional sports events.
A 1992 poll sponsored by the American Council on the Arts showed 60
percent of the American people favored Federal support of the arts.
Further reductions in funding for the NEA would have adverse
implications on both constituents and the cultural agencies in our
districts. The author of this amendment must be aware of the
ramifications his amendment would have on his own district. The
$181,000 received by the Illinois Art Council in past years to support
artists residing in Mr. Crane's district would be eliminated. This
money made it possible for writing, crafts, theater, dance, and visual
arts projects to exist in Palatine and Elk Grove Village, IL--both of
which are represented by Congressman Crane. In my district of
Rochester, NY, the National Association of Local Arts Agencies found
that nonprofit arts organizations spent approximately $124 million
annually and supported more than 4,000 full-time jobs.
Discussion about our national priorities begin and end with
children--they are our future, our legacy, and our greatest resource.
What the arts can do in the lives of our Nations children cannot be
underestimated. The arts have the
power to change a child's life. Children that create do not destroy.
Access to art assists in keeping kids in school and off the streets.
Art has a positive impact on a child, it enriches their lives and
empowers them with a strong sense of self-worth. The NEA stresses that
arts education may be the only way to reach at-risk children, deter
them from violence, and increase their ability in every academic area
giving them a sense of identity and discipline. Children who have art
in education are better students with stronger analytical skills and
higher esteem. The NEA's Arts in Education Program places 14,500
artists in schools in every State to work with children. Arts education
is integral to school curriculum as it affects virtually all areas of
learning. Children who learn through the arts improve in every academic
area, have better attendance, and have increased motivation to learn.
In 1993 the college entrance examination reported that students who
studied the arts more than 4 years scored 53 points higher on the
verbal portion of the exam and 37 points higher on the math portion of
the exam than students with no course work or experience in the arts.
This makes it essential for the NEA to be able to continue to provide
support to our Nations children.

The NEA provides equal access and opportunity to the people of our
Nation, many of whom would otherwise be deprived from experiencing the
arts in American society. The arts serve as a medium of documentation,
the essence of the American experience is recorded through art. Art
remains a living record of civilization and society. Every civilization
judges the civilization before it by the art it has left behind. Are we
going to leave anything behind?
The CHAIRMAN. All time has expired.
The question is on the amendment offered by the gentleman from
Florida [Mr. Stearns].
The question was taken; and the Chairman announced that the noes
appeared to have it.

recorded vote

Mr. STEARNS. Mr. Chairman, I demand a recorded vote.
A recorded vote was ordered.
The vote was taken by electronic device, and there were--ayes 168,
noes 260, not voting 6, as follows:

[Roll No. 249]

AYES--168

Allard
Archer
Armey
Bachus
Baker (CA)
Barr
Barrett (NE)
Bartlett
Barton
Bass
Bateman
Bilirakis
Bliley
Boehner
Bono
Browder
Brownback
Bryant (TN)
Bunning
Burton
Buyer
Callahan
Calvert
Canady
Chabot
Chambliss
Chapman
Chenoweth
Christensen
Coble
Coburn
Collins (GA)
Combest
Condit
Cooley
Cox
Cramer
Crane
Crapo
Cremeans
Cunningham
Deal
DeLay
Diaz-Balart
Dickey
Doolittle
Dornan
Dreier
Duncan
Dunn
Emerson
Everett
Fields (TX)
Foley
Forbes
Fowler
Frisa
Funderburk
Gallegly
Gekas
Geren
Gillmor
Goodlatte
Goss
Graham
Hall (TX)
Hancock
Hansen
Hastert
Hastings (WA)
Hayworth
Hefley
Heineman
Herger
Hilleary
Hoekstra
Hostettler
Hunter
Hutchinson
Hyde
Inglis
Istook
Johnson, Sam
Jones
Kasich
Kim
King
Kingston
Largent
Latham
Laughlin
Lewis (KY)
Lightfoot
Linder
Manzullo
McCollum
McHugh
McIntosh
McKeon
Metcalf
Mica
Miller (FL)
Molinari
Montgomery
Moorhead
Myers
Myrick
Nethercutt
Neumann
Ney
Norwood
Orton
Packard
Parker
Paxon
Petri
Pombo
Portman
Pryce
Quillen
Radanovich
Riggs
Roberts
Rohrabacher
Ros-Lehtinen
Roth
Royce
Salmon
Sanford
Scarborough
Schaefer
Seastrand
Sensenbrenner
Shadegg
Shays
Shuster
Skelton
Smith (MI)
Smith (NJ)
Smith (TX)
Smith (WA)
Solomon
Souder
Spence
Stearns
Stenholm
Stockman
Stump
Talent
Tanner
Tate
Tauzin
Taylor (MS)
Thornberry
Tiahrt
Vucanovich
Waldholtz
Walker
Wamp
Watts (OK)
Weldon (FL)
Weller
White
Whitfield
Wicker
Young (FL)
Zeliff
Zimmer

NOES--260

Abercrombie
Ackerman
Andrews
Baesler
Baker (LA)
Baldacci
Ballenger
Barcia
Barrett (WI)
Becerra
Beilenson
Bentsen
Bereuter
Berman
Bevill
Bilbray
Bishop
Blute
Boehlert
Bonilla
Bonior
Borski
Boucher
Brewster
Brown (CA)
Brown (FL)
Brown (OH)
Bryant (TX)
Bunn
Camp
Cardin
Castle
Chrysler
Clay
Clayton
Clement
Clinger
Clyburn
Coleman
Collins (IL)
Collins (MI)
Conyers
Costello
Coyne
Danner
Davis
de la Garza
DeFazio
DeLauro
Dellums
Deutsch
Dicks
Dingell
Dixon
Doggett
Dooley
Doyle
Durbin
Edwards
Ehlers
Ehrlich
Engel
English
Ensign
Eshoo
Evans
Ewing
Farr
Fattah
Fawell
Fazio
Fields (LA)
Filner
Flake
Flanagan
Foglietta
Fox
Frank (MA)
Franks (CT)
Franks (NJ)
Frelinghuysen
Furse
Ganske
Gejdenson
Gephardt
Gibbons
Gilchrest
Gilman
Gonzalez
Goodling
Gordon
Green
Greenwood
Gunderson
Gutierrez
Gutknecht
Hall (OH)
Hamilton
Harman
[[Page H3295]] Hastings (FL)
Hayes
Hefner
Hilliard
Hinchey
Hobson
Hoke
Holden
Horn
Houghton
Hoyer
Jackson-Lee
Jacobs
Jefferson
Johnson (CT)
Johnson (SD)
Johnston
Kanjorski
Kaptur
Kelly
Kennedy (MA)
Kennedy (RI)
Kennelly
Kildee
Kleczka
Klink
Klug
Knollenberg
Kolbe
LaFalce
LaHood
Lantos
LaTourette
Lazio
Leach
Levin
Lewis (CA)
Lincoln
Lipinski
Livingston
LoBiondo
Lofgren
Longley
Lowey
Lucas
Luther
Maloney
Manton
Markey
Martinez
Martini
Mascara
Matsui
McCarthy
McCrery
McDade
McDermott
McHale
McInnis
McKinney
McNulty
Meehan
Meek
Menendez
Meyers
Mfume
Miller (CA)
Mineta
Minge
Mink
Moakley
Mollohan
Moran
Morella
Murtha
Nadler
Neal
Nussle
Oberstar
Obey
Olver
Ortiz
Owens
Oxley
Pallone
Pastor
Payne (NJ)
Payne (VA)
Pelosi
Peterson (FL)
Peterson (MN)
Pickett
Pomeroy
Porter
Poshard
Quinn
Rahall
Ramstad
Rangel
Reed
Regula
Reynolds
Richardson
Rivers
Roemer
Rogers
Rose
Roukema
Roybal-Allard
Rush
Sabo
Sanders
Sawyer
Saxton
Schiff
Schroeder
Schumer
Scott
Serrano
Shaw
Sisisky
Skaggs
Skeen
Slaughter
Spratt
Stark
Stokes
Studds
Stupak
Taylor (NC)
Tejeda
Thomas
Thompson
Thornton
Thurman
Torkildsen
Torres
Torricelli
Towns
Traficant
Tucker
Upton
Velazquez
Vento
Visclosky
Volkmer
Walsh
Ward
Waters
Watt (NC)
Waxman
Weldon (PA)
Williams
Wilson
Wise
Wolf
Woolsey
Wyden
Wynn
Yates
Young (AK)

NOT VOTING--6

Burr
Cubin
Ford
Frost
Johnson, E. B.
Lewis (GA)

{time} 1237

The Clerk announced the following pair:
On this vote:

Mrs. Cabin for, with Mr. Frost against.

Mr. MARTINEZ changed his vote from ``aye'' to ``no.''
Messrs. SMITH of Michigan, SMITH of Texas, BASS, WHITFIELD, CRAMER,
POMBO, and KINGSTON changed their vote from ``no'' to ``aye.''
So the amendment was rejected.
The result of the vote was announced as above recorded.
The CHAIRMAN. The question is on the amendment in the nature of a
substitute, as modified, as amended.
The amendment in the nature of a substitute, as modified, as amended,
was agreed to.
Ms. ESHOO. Mr. Chairman, I rise in support of the Corporation for
Public Broadcasting [CPB] and urge Members to oppose rescissions which
would pull the plug on this valuable service.
Millions of Americans--including countless members of the bay area
community in California--have come to rely on public broadcasting for
quality programming on a wide range of issues.
Yet some have argued that Federal funds for public broadcasting must
be eliminated in order to help balance the budget, and others claim
that CPB should be abolished because it is a bastion of liberal
propaganda.
While I certainly favor serious steps to reduce the deficit, and have
voted accordingly in Congress, the truth is each dollar of Federal
support for public broadcasting attracts $5 in support from private
sector sources. CPB is a good investment.
Furthermore, the assertion that CPB propagates liberal political
ideals is unfounded. The last time I checked, ``Sesame Street,'' ``Mr.
Roger's Neighborhood,'' and ``Barney'' were not overtly political
shows. And when did William Buckley's ``Firing Line'' become a hotbed
for liberalism?
Mr. Chairman, as a mother who raised two children, I relied on public
broadcasting and learned the value of noncommercial television. I never
worried about leaving the room while my kids were watching Ernie and
Bert or Fred Rogers because I knew they were in safe hands.
These are shows which emphasize the values of respect, honesty, and
good citizenship. I'm certain my children, who have gone on to achieve
superb educations, got a head start in their academic careers from the
lessons they learned on public broadcasting. And as young adults, they
still tune in.
I strongly urge Members to consider the economic and educational
benefits of CPB when casting their votes today. This is not a political
vote. It's a vote for our children. It's a commonsense investment in
our future.
Mr. POMEROY. Mr. Chairman, I rise today in opposition to the bill,
H.R. 1158, emergency supplemental appropriations and rescissions.
I am extremely disappointed with the rule under which H.R. 1158 has
been brought to the floor. It is unfortunate that my colleagues and I
have been denied the opportunity to offer alternative cuts to restore
funding for programs we support.
Cutting programs like the Low Income Home Energy Program [LIHEAP] is
not the way to get our fiscal house in order. We should not totally
eliminate the funding for a critical program which targets the very
poor and helps them stay off other forms of welfare. In a time when we
were trying to get individuals off welfare, we are eliminating a
program which really goes to the heart of the problem and offers
preventive measures.
In North Dakota, one-third of all LIHEAP recipients receive no other
government assistance. LIHEAP makes the difference between families
becoming homeless or dependent on more costly welfare programs.
For many senior citizens, the winter months force the heartbreaking
decision of eat or heat. The high cost of heating their home forces
some seniors to enter a nursing home, spend down their resources, and
then become dependent on Medicaid.
In the view of these concerns and the fact that eliminating Federal
funding for heating assistance places yet another financial burden on
the States, I cannot support this rescission measure.
Ms. KAPTUR. Mr. Chairman, I rise today in opposition to this bill,
and in support of Citizens like Annie Coleman of my district who will
turn 73 on April 30. This bill pulls the rug out from under her. Let me
tell you her story.
Annie lives on Oakwood Avenue in Toledo, OH, and worked all her life
for Superior Laundry. She saved to own her own home and raised four
children. She took care of a dying mother and husband after her
retirement.
She now survives by picking up odd jobs, at age 72, because her
Social Security checks of $640 a month are simply not enough to make
ends meet. She pays nearly $200 a month for health insurance and
prescriptions. Her heating bills are $180 a month and she receives $117
a month in winter heating assistance and emergency heating assistance
in the winter. Even with this helping hand, she is left with $90 a week
on which to live. Without it, she must make a choice between food and
heat. No one who has lived through below zero Midwestern winters should
be forced to make that choice.
The bill before us will eliminate the winter heating assistance
[LIHEAP] Program. It will hurt Annie and 25,000 other citizens in
northwest Ohio; it will hurt over 2 million elderly citizens across
America. I cannot support a bill which puts the most vulnerable people
in our society at risk.
Over the past 2 days we have engaged in a major debate on the worthy
goal of balancing our budget by cutting $17.3 billion. Reducing the
deficit and balancing the budget is a must and I have worked hard and
continue to work hard to achieve that. But this is not the way to do
it.
As we try to plug the red ink dike, the holes in the dike of our
increasing debt, this $17.3 billion exercise is fruitless because at
the same time there are billions of dollars flowing out the other side
of the dike that are not under consideration and we are told are
completely off the table.
Why not get rid of tax breaks for corporate welfare? We hear a lot
about welfare for ordinary citizens. What about corporate welfare? Why
not eliminate the tax breaks that give $5 billion for pharmaceutical
companies to leave the United States and manufacture offshore; why not
eliminate $30 billion worth of transfer pricing that rewards all these
foreign corporations operating in the United States that do not pay a
dime of taxes; why not auction off the rights to manufacture the space
station and exact continuing royalties that will result in $40 billion
in savings?
This rescission bill before us today makes none of these cuts. The
bill before us today is irresponsible fiscal policy. No one should
swallow the line that this bill will really result in deficit
reduction. While it hurts our seniors and cuts out the summer jobs for
our teenage sons and daughters, it also bankrolls the money for a
future tax cut for America's wealthiest citizens. Thus, not only is the
money being cut from our children and seniors, but it then is shifted
to pay for capital gains and other tax cuts for the wealthiest among us
as well as disaster relief largely for one State, California, which has
the resources to pay for its own costs. In fact, the Governor of
California has announced he wants to cut taxes in his State by $7
billion while asking the Federal Government to pick up $5 billion in
disaster assistance.
The cuts in this bill will severely impact my community. I am
especially worried about the impact of these cuts on the elderly and
children.
[[Page H3296]] summer youth jobs

Over my strong objections, the summer jobs for teenagers will be
eliminated by this bill, which will eliminate nearly 2,000 jobs over 2
years in my district. In fact, 20 percent of the entire savings in this
bill--$33 billion in all--comes from cuts in the various programs to
move teenagers into the world of work. The rescission package
completely eliminates summer jobs which employs about 600,000 young
people nationwide. Youth, job training, Job Corps, and school-to-work
accounted for $500 million in cuts.
In my district, 1,683 youth enrolled in the program and participated
in jobs that were not make work jobs last summer. They worked at
community centers and nonprofits throughout the community. The cut
jeopardizes several innovative programs. The city of Toledo used summer
youths to remove graffiti. The Arts Commission of Greater Toledo
provided them with the opportunity to prepare public artwork, and learn
skills at the same time. The Community Development Center--Spencer
Township--uses summer youth to run a nutrition program to make up for
school lunches that disadvantaged children do not get in the summer.
The Red Cross and Catholic Club run recreation/day camp programs so
that younger children have some place constructive to go during the
summer months.
In addition, hundreds of other youth work at area nonprofit
communities performing vital maintenance, upkeep and support functions
that would go undone if not for summer youth workers.

winter heating assistance [liheap]

This bill will eliminate heating assistance to help pay for gas and
utility bills for over 13,700 seniors and a total of 25,000 low income
families in my district. This includes 12,531 seniors in Lucas County,
521 seniors in Wood County, 383 seniors in Ottawa County, and 266
seniors in Fulton County. Nationwide, 2 million elderly households are
helped each year through LIHEAP. The rescission package would
completely eliminate the program. This cut will force low-income
elderly to choose between heat and medicine or heat and food. No one in
our Nation should be forced to make this choice.

public broadcasting

Quality educational programming at our public television stations
WBGU and WGTE will also be affected by cuts of over 30 percent in
funding that will accelerate over the next 3 years. With the increase
of violence and degrading television programs, CPB continues to fund
marvelous children's educational and entertaining programs such as
``Sesame Street,'' ``Reading Rainbow,'' and ``Square One TV.''
Educating children, especially preschoolers is one of the most
important goals of public television and where public television
performs best.

medigap insurance scams

The rescission package cuts in half Federal assistance to help senior
citizens in all income groups being victimized by so-called Medigap
insurance scams. Literally billions are spent by seniors each year on
health insurance and while much of it is needed, it is estimated that a
major portion of the total is either duplicative or coverage that
seniors already have or is written in a way as to provide most seniors
with very little added coverage.
During committee consideration, we attempted to meet deficit targets
using cuts in programs that did not adversely affect children and the
elderly. We tried to convert disaster assistance to California from
grants to loan guarantees in order to minimize the budget impact and
reprogram dollars to people's needs.
We must not put the most vulnerable people in our society at risk, to
provide disaster assistance to States who can afford to pay for their
own problems or to provide a tax cut for the wealthiest in our Nation.
This bill is wrong-headed and deserves rejection.
Mr. FAZIO of California. Mr. Chairman, the GOP rescissions bill we
are debating today is wrong headed. Worse, it sets a dangerous
precedent, by laying waste to education and nutrition programs in order
to finance a taxbailout for America's wealthiest individuals and
corporations.
Although the bill we are debating would extend necessary aid to
communities in California damaged in the Northridge earthquake, the
bill targets programs that help many of our most vulnerable citizens--
schoolchildren, the elderly, and working Americans trying to adapt to a
changing economy.
The American people have begun to express their profound unease with
elements of the Contract With America. Recent polls in the Wall Street
Journal and the New York Times indicate a growing sense of discontent
and ambivalence toward many of the major proposals put forth by the
Republican leadership.
The American people are not misinformed. They don't need another
lecture from a talk-radio host. They don't need to read a campaign
manifesto that bills itself as ``A Job Creation and Wage Enhancement
Act.'' They don't need to pay for a series of lecture tapes.
Sadly, they are all too familiar with a governing philosophy that
puts the wealthiest few ahead of the working family.
The American people want their representatives to speak honestly. The
GOP promised much of the same just a few years ago. Tax breaks for the
wealthy. Savings down the road. The result was deficit spending at a
record rate and a trillion dollar debt for our children.
The Republican's have, so far, failed to present a budget to the
American people that spells out their commitment to hard-working
families, children, the elderly, and the disadvantaged. What they have
presented, in detailed fashion, is a bill to slash care for expectant
mothers and newborn children; a bill to strip schools of the resources
they need to provide a safe, drug-free environment for learning; a bill
to deny young people the opportunity to work this summer and next
summer.
Instead, they had the temerity to announce a new round of tax relief
that does little for middle-class working Americans.
By eliminating the alternative minimum tax, the Republicans have
given large corporations the opportunity to shirk their tax obligation.
50 percent of the total benefits of the GOP tax plan would benefit
those earning $100,000 or more. The capital gains provision would also
disproportionately benefit upper-income taxpayers--76 percent of the
benefits would go to the same group of upper-income Americans.
Ninety-two dollars. That's what the capital gains tax cut would mean
for families that take home less than $30,000 a year.
A $92 break--at the expense of a safe, drug-free classroom, or a
balanced diet for a newborn infant, or a summer job for a young father.
That sounds more like a con-job than a contract.
The Republicans offer little relief to the vast segment of our work
force that has seen real incomes decline. Between 1979 and 1993, 60
percent of Americans experienced no real income growth.
Despite the explosive growth of overall household income in the same
period, most benefits were concentrated among upper-income families.
Restoring opportunity and providing the foundation for income growth
for every working American--that is my commitment.
It is with regret that I cannot support final passage of the disaster
assistance. However, as immediate needs can be met through existing
funds in FEMA, Congress still has the opportunity to make responsible
choices in offsetting this spending. It is unfortunate that the
Republicans have chosen to go forward with vital disaster aid as part
of a controversial package of spending cuts.
Not only have the Republicans suddenly decided to set a precedent and
offset disaster assistance retroactively, they make three times as many
cuts as necessary. In order to solve a disaster, they create another
disaster for many of the very people in need.
They target those cuts to people who have paid the price in the past
and who are the most vulnerable, seniors and children, while exempting
other programs that should be considered and cannot be touched under
the rule. If the Republicans wanted to deal seriously with the budget,
they would not have jeopardized disaster assistance or resisted initial
efforts to link the offset to deficit reduction.
This bill is dishonest and should not be supported. Disaster
assistance should be considered on its own merits and not as part of
some back-room deal to provide a tax cut to upper-income people and
America's largest corporations, the very folks who really don't need
it. Even if these cuts are put toward deficit reduction, the pending
tax cuts will still have to be paid for in the future. It is evident
what the Republican Members are saying--no matter what it is we are
paying for, it is those at the lower end of the income scale who will
pay for it.
Mr. QUINN. Mr. Chairman, I rise today in opposition to the proposed
elimination of the Summer Youth Program. I fully support the program
and will fight to restore its funding when the rescissions bill is sent
to the conference committee later this year.
At the same time, I encourage private sector businesses to contribute
to the Summer Youth Program so they may make a contribution to the
communities in which they do business. In these times of tight
budgetary constraints, it is my hope that local businesses can assist
in ways that the Government can no longer afford.
Although I support the Summer Youth Program, I also saw the need for
reducing the deficit. If we continue to spend money we don't have, we
will be passing the financial burden on to our children.
Mr. Chairman, I urge all of my colleagues, especially the members of
the Appropriations
[[Page H3297]] Committee, to work to restore the funds necessary to
continue the Summer Youth Program.
Mr. BORSKI. Mr. Chairman, I rise today in opposition to the
rescissions of appropriations for public broadcasting included in H.R.
1158. These shortsighted cuts will have a serious impact on the
broadcasting of high-quality educational and cultural broadcasting.
As you know, Mr. Chairman, H.R. 1158 would rescind a total of $141
million from advance appropriations for the Corporation for Public
Broadcasting. These rescissions amount to a 15-percent cut in the
fiscal year 1996 appropriation, and a 30-percent cut in the fiscal year
1997 appropriation.
Like many of the rescissions included in this bill, the CPB
rescission would unfairly hurt middle-income working Americans the
most--all to pay for the coming Republican tax-cut bill that will
mostly benefit wealthy Americans.
Opponents of public broadcasting have often commented that Federal
funding for the CPB benefits primarily the cultural elite. A close
study of those who view or listen to public broadcasting shatter this
myth. Of the more than 15 million people who listen to public radio, 41
percent earn less than $30,000 annually. More than half the over-18
million regular viewers of PBS stations are from household incomes of
less than $40,000.
Mr. Chairman, 99 percent of the country receives at least one public
broadcast signal--for free. This broad reach is especially important
for our cities. Public broadcasting is more than a broadcast service
for these areas. Public TV provides instructional services to 30
million students and 2 million teachers in three-quarters of the
Nation's schools. It provides approximately 1,600 hours of free,
noncommercial programming each year for off-air taping and classroom
use.
Public broadcasting also offers Americans flexible opportunities for
lifelong learning. About 88,000 adults, each year, use public
television to study for the high school equivalency examination.
In short, Mr. Chairman, public broadcasting serves every segment of
our society. We should not cut its Federal funds to provide tax breaks
for wealthy Americans. I will oppose these short-sighted cuts and urge
my colleagues to do the same.
Mr. LAZIO of New York. Mr. Chairman, I rise today to speak about a
portion of the rescission package currently before the House, one that
has more to do with policy than with cutting funds.
Included in the rescission package is wording that concerns one of
public housing's greatest difficulties--one-for-one replacement
requirements. These requirements make it almost impossible for a public
housing authority to tear down old, expensive, often totally abandoned
buildings because of misguided laws and regulations.
The distinguished member from California and chairman of the HUD/VA
Appropriations Subcommittee, Mr. Lewis, correctly focuses on this issue
as one of many impediments to rebuilding our Nation's neighborhoods.
Clearly, as chairman of the authorizing subcommittee on this matter,
it is my responsibility to set the course on important policy matters.
Mr. Lewis' repeal of section 18(b)(3) of the Housing Act is a temporary
measure for fiscal year 1995 aimed at alleviating immediate pressures
on local PHA's who want to get rid of these boarded-up eyesores. It
falls on the authorizing subcommittee to enact the serious policy
changes that can make this happen.
Even before this rescission bill came up, the distinguished Member
from Louisiana, Richard Baker, and I were working to draft legislation
that will address the full range of issues surrounding this
requirement. Mr. Baker championed this issue in last year's housing
bill.
I am glad to see this issue addressed and I assure this body that the
permanent authorizing language addressing the entire range of problems
relating to the demolition of vacant public housing is forthcoming.
Mr. Chairman, I have the greatest respect and admiration for the
Appropriations VA/HUD Subcommittee chairman and his actions to send a
message to HUD--this is not business as usual. I look forward to
continuing this process in the months ahead.
Mr. MARKEY. Mr. Chairman, I rise today in strong opposition to the
bill before us, which attacks many of the programs that assist our
Nation's neediest citizens. I am particularly disturbed by the fact
that this bill deals a devastating blow to the millions of American
households that depend upon fuel assistance provided by the Low Income
Home Energy Assistance Program to get through each winter by
eliminating all funding for this program.
LIHEAP recipients are some of the poorest among us--in fact, 70
percent of those people who receive LIHEAP funds have annual incomes of
less than $8,000. They include working families with young children,
the disabled, and the many senior citizens who live on limited, fixed
incomes.
This program is especially critical for people in New England, who
must wage a battle on two fronts, for survival during winters that can
be bitterly cold, and for economic stability in a recovering, but by no
means robust, economy.
Many of my colleagues on the other side of the aisle spent
considerable time and energy earlier this year professing their
commitment to protecting our Nation's elderly from financial
insecurity. When we debated the balanced budget amendment, the
Republicans told us that they would not raid the Social Security
Program to bring down the deficit. They were unwilling to write this
guarantee into their amendment, to enshrine this protection in the
Constitution, and yet they asked us to take their word for it that they
would protect Social Security.
And now, a few short weeks later, the Republican leadership of this
House has brought before us a bill that completely eliminates funding
for LIHEAP. Of the 144,000 people from Massachusetts who receive
assistance from LIHEAP, 40,000 of them are over the age of 60. What
kind of financial security is the House GOP providing to those 40,000
low-income seniors by taking their heating assistance away? A study
conducted by the University of Massachusetts has shown that our senior
citizens must sometimes sacrifice food in order to pay for fuel to heat
their homes in winter. Making it even harder for these people to afford
home heating energy will only make our seniors less financially secure
in what is meant to be their golden years.
Mr. QUINN. Mr. Chairman, I rise today to speak to an issue of utmost
importance to my district in western New York.
Mr. Speaker, I applaud congressional efforts to trim Federal spending
and reduce our deficit. We are making some bold and difficult
decisions. The rescissions bill before this body makes many steps in
the right direction.
It is an injustice, however, to eliminate programs--which unlike the
Small Business Administration's tree planting program--people depend
upon to meet their basic needs.
I am referring to the Low Income Home Energy Assistance Program or
LIHEAP. I know this might not be a big concern to citizens in Florida
or Arizona--but to those who live in areas like Buffalo, NY, it can be
a matter of life or death.
LIHEAP provides fuel assistance to disabled, working poor, and low-
income senior citizens who can not meet their own total energy needs.
Fifty-five percent of households receiving assistance have at least one
child under age 18 and 43 percent include senior citizens.
Some argue that LIHEAP was conceived in a time of energy crisis and
that is no longer needed. We must remember, however, that energy is
still not affordable to everyone.
LIHEAP recipients have an average income of $8,257 per year--without
some assistance their heat could be cut off. Eighteen percent of their
incomes are spent on energy needs.
LIHEAP is a vital program which is certainly not pork or luxurious
Federal spending.
I am very worried about the families and seniors from my district and
districts across the Nation who may be unable to properly heat their
homes next winter. I hope that the good and bad aspects of eliminating
the LIHEAP program will be more properly addressed during the
appropriations process.
Mr. LUTHER. Mr. Chairman, I believe deficit reduction is critical to
our Nation's future. I supported the balanced budget amendment and the
line-item veto. I will support efforts across the board to cut
unnecessary spending.
But I am particularly troubled by the provision in the pending
rescissions bill that completely eliminates the summer youth jobs
program for both 1995 and 1996. Mr. Chairman, this is not just a cut,
it's not just holding the line at current levels, it kills the
initiative entirely.
I agree that we must reform and consolidate job training programs,
but this is the worst means to achieve that end.
The Summer Youth Jobs Program is not pork or welfare. It's work and
common sense.
When told of these cuts, Janet Ames, Summer Youth Jobs Program
coordinator in Washington County in my congressional district said:

Elimination of the Summer Youth Jobs Program is a terrible
mistake. By denying opportunity to our young people, we will
send a signal that work doesn't matter. That is the worst
message we can send them. These funds must be restored.

The people I represent are deeply concerned about rising crime in our
suburban areas.
As Ron Nicholas, the chief of police of Blaine, MI, stated when told
of these cuts: ``The Summer Youth Jobs Program is the best tool local
law enforcement has seen that reduces youth-related crime. It doesn't
make any sense to eliminate it.''
If the proposed cuts go into effect, 1,200 young people in my
congressional district in
[[Page H3298]] Anoka, Washington, and Dakota Counties of Minnesota will
have less hope, less opportunity, and less chance for a positive work
experience to shape their lives this summer.
Let's be honest with ourselves--many at-risk young people simply
don't have what most of us had in our own lives--a requirement to get
up in the morning, a person to show them how to work, or someone to
appreciate their accomplishments and build their self-confidence and
self-esteem.
Let's rise above politics today and give our young people an
alternative to despair and hopelessness--because there is no denying
that as predictable as the sun rises every morning, despair and
hopelessness will result in young lives with unlimited potential being
forever lost to the tragedy of criminal behavior. We cannot afford to
let that happen.
Mr. SAWYER. Mr. Chairman, I rise in strong opposition to H.R. 1158,
the omnibus rescissions and disaster supplemental appropriations bill.
I don't argue with the need to make the tough choices that will lead
to a balanced Federal budget. That's why I'm sponsoring a balanced
budget bill with Congressman Bob Wise.
But I am deeply troubled by what this bill says about our priorities
as a nation.
We aren't making tough choices here. We're taking shots at the most
vulnerable among us: our children and senior citizens.
We're cutting deeply into the greatest investments we can make in our
country's future prosperity: education and job training.
Where is our commitment to investing in the future potential of our
young people and American workers?
Let me point out one example.
This bill eliminates 5 programs that help 60 million American adults
who are functionally illiterate become productive and self-sufficient
citizens.
Literacy programs aren't a drain on Federal and State treasuries.
Illiteracy is.
According to the Ohio Literacy Resource Center, low literacy levels
cost $224 billion a year in lost productivity, welfare payments, and
crime-related costs.
The proponents of this bill have said that we are eliminating
programs that don't work. I submit unequivocally that these literacy
programs do work.
This bill eliminates all funding for State Literacy Resource Centers.
These centers provide ``one-stop shopping'' for State and Federal
literacy services needing assistance with research and curriculum
development. They eliminate the need for overlapping functions at the
State level. They promote public/private partnerships by linking
educational institutions with information about improved literacy
techniques developed by private organizations and researchers.
This bill eliminates all funding for the National Institute for
Literacy.
The Institute coordinates efforts to reach the sixth national
education goal: that all Americans will be literate by the year 2000.
It also provides technical assistance to literacy providers.
The Institute is in its 2nd year of operation. It has launched
important new initiatives to promote adult literacy across the country.
This is a service that works. It's not broke. It doesn't need to be
fixed. So for goodness' sake, let's not break it!
I had hoped to offer an amendment to restore the funding for literacy
programs.
But under the current rule, the only way to do that would be to take
more money from: educationally disadvantaged children; or from programs
that help teachers improve their skills; or from job training programs
for young people.
That's not a rational choice at all.
That's not just robbing Peter to pay Paul. It's robbing our Nation of
its future.
Perhaps we should heed the words of a prominent and much-admired
American: ``Parents with literacy problems are more likely to raise
children who will have problems themselves.''
Ladies and gentlemen, Barbara Bush is right. The greatest predictor
of a child's future academic success is the literacy level of the
child's mother.
Mr. Chairman, I want to conclude with a disturbing observation.
The Republican leadership is trying to amend the Constitution of the
United States for the 2nd time in 100 days.
Experts say that it takes an 11th grade education to read and
understand the Constitution. Yet, 60 million American adults can't read
or write beyond the eighth grade level.
I am appalled that we would try to amend the fundamental document of
our system of governance, yet deny all funding to programs that help
millions of Americans fulfill the promise of that democracy.
I urge my colleagues to defeat this bill.
Mr. WISE. Mr. Chairman, the action proposed by the House
Appropriations Committee would completely eliminate funding for:
library literacy grants--$8 million; the National Institute for
Literacy--$4.9 million; State literacy resource centers--$7.8 million;
workplace literacy partnership grants--$18.7 million; literacy training
for homeless adults)--$9.5 million; and literacy programs for
prisoners--$5.1 million. A total of $54 million in cuts. Of that
amount, $35 million is direct services to students.
Current funding levels--prerescission fiscal year 1995--provide $4
per eligible person per year. The proposed cuts would mean 600,000
individuals will be cut from individual instruction and classes.
While it is true the President's fiscal year 1996 budget also
proposes to eliminate all these programs as line items in the budget,
his plan shifts current spending for them to basic State grants and to
National Programs in the case of the National Institute for Literacy.
Savings from this rescission may help pay for a middle class tax cut.
Estimates suggest that the tax cut being considered would add
approximately $4 a week to the paycheck of an individual earning
$40,000. Is such a tax cut really cost effective when compared against
corresponding cuts in adult education which helps those who are most
educationally disadvantaged to get jobs, pay taxes and get off public
assistance.
The Republican Contract With America claims to be about personal
responsibility. These programs are the very vehicles by which many
Americans are attempting to take personal responsibility for their
lives and for their families.
An individual attempting to improve their life and increase the
opportunities for their family who doesn't have basic reading skills is
up against insurmountable odds. He/she can't read the want ads. They
can't fill out a job application. They can't pass a basic skills test
required by potential employers. They can't, for that matter, help
their children with their homework, read them a bedtime story, or even
interpret the instructions on a bottle of medicine. How does cutting
off educational opportunities to these people increase their ability to
assume personal responsibility?
Mr. EVANS. Mr. Chairman, this rescissions package is more of the same
old story. Let's steal from the poor to give to the rich.
These cuts will hit some of the most vulnerable people in our
society--our children, seniors, veterans, and the poor--to pay for
their contract on America which is nothing more than a contract for big
business and the wealthy in this country.
We are all in agreement that we must cut wasteful and unnecessary
spending. However, this bill takes a meat ax to some of this country's
most successful programs including the Low-Income Home Energy
Assistance Program, veterans assistance, summer jobs, WIC, and a host
of others that benefit the needy.
The total elimination of LIHEAP is a particularly unfair hit on
Illinois and entire Northeast/Midwest regions of our country where
winters are particularly severe. Just last year, President Clinton was
faced with declaring a natural disaster in these regions due to the
dangerously low temperatures. LIHEAP was able to rescue millions of
families from last year's unbearable harsh weather.
This rescission package also says to our country's veterans that we
don't appreciate their years of dedicated service. This package
rescinds $206 million from the already beleaguered veterans budget. It
axes out funds intended for much-needed medical equipment, and
ambulatory care facilities.
Finally, the majority continues with its unjust assault on our
children by slashing moneys for Women, Infants, and Children Program,
education programs for disadvantaged youth, drug-free school zones, and
children and family services programs.
Mr. Chairman, we have a responsibility to assist the helpless and the
needy in our society. Let's not abandon them to provide unjustifiable
tax cuts for wealthy individuals and corporations in this country.
Mr. MARTINEZ. Mr. Chairman, I rise in opposition to the amendment
offered by the gentleman from Texas [Mr. DeLay].
This House has been filed with misstatements, insupportable
allegations, and outright fabrications about OSHA and the worker safety
laws which have saved millions of workers lives and billions of dollars
for employers throughout the United States.
Now we find proposals that are designed to defeat rules and
regulations that major industry groups, including the poultry, health
care, and auto industries, among others, are looking forward to.
It is said that OSHA does not know how much this new rule will cost
industry, or whether those costs will outweigh the benefits that might
accrue from this rule.
One thing that we all know is that muscle and skeletal injuries
resulting in loss work, workmen's compensation, increased health care
costs, and so forth. Are the most significant and fastest growing work-
related problems industry and commerce currently face,
[[Page H3299]] totaling perhaps 60 percent of the new occupational
illness reported.
Studies also show that, very frequently, the specific causes of those
injuries, once isolated, can be cured by very inexpensive changes in
the work site.
For instance, in some food processing plants, merely increasing the
height of the table on which the product was prepared resulted in a
dramatic lessening of incidence of worker complaint, and savings--
direct savings--to the employer of more than enough money to refit the
entire processing line.
As the saying goes: You can pay me now or pay me later.
Employers can continue to ignore the pleas of their workers, continue
to see their workmen's compensation and health care costs rise,
continue to see their taxes rise to pay unemployment and disability
benefits or they can work within the OSHA ergonomic rules and make the
adjustments to the work station or other changes, make the investment
and reap the rewards of a more productive and healthier work force.
To deny the businesses in the United States the guidance that these
regulations will provide may make the Republicans feel good, but, in
the long run they will simply continue the increasing costs our
businesses are now faced with.
Do the right thing for American business.
Do the right thing for American workers.
Defeat the DeLay amendment.
Mr. PACKARD. Mr. Chairman, I rise in opposition to the bill.
Over the last 7 weeks, in fact over the last 7 years, I have traveled
thousands of miles across my district explaining, as best I can, why we
need to stop deficit spending and why we need to balance the budget.
Let me state again for the record; deficit spending is the biggest
threat to our veterans' health care, education loans, child care,
transportation improvements, or any other public need which we must
attempt to meet.
If we do not slow the growth in spending and operate on a pay-as-you-
go basis, we will soon have no money for anything but paying interest
on the debt and perhaps some basic entitlement programs.
I have a strong record on voting to control spending. I have twice
made the Concorn Coalition Honor Roll, and have been cited by groups
such as the Citizens Against Government Waste and National Taxpayers
Union for my willingness to make the tough choices on spending. I have
voted for the Penny-Kasich amendment to cut over $90 billion in Federal
spending, and have supported the balanced budget amendment to the
Constitution.
Having said all of that, I will vote against this bill. It is
seriously flawed in a number of specific instances.
This rescission bill is attempting to cut Federal spending in a very
unfair, unbalanced way. These cuts are in fiscal year 1995
appropriations. These are moneys that have already been guaranteed to
veterans, children, the elderly, and other people who are the most
vulnerable in our society. Not one big ticket item in the budget,
including defense, is cut at all. I will vote at any time to restrict
the growth of Federal spending as long as all programs are subject to
the same considerations, not just subjecting some programs to deep cuts
and leaving others entirely alone or even increasing them, because the
opposition party doesn't agree philosophically with the program.
Only at the 11th hour have we been told the cuts contained within
this package will go to deficit reduction. That is something which I
have supported and which I encouraged the committee to adopt. But I am
not convinced that the $12 billion or so in this package will in fact
be put against the deficit.
There are major tax cut proposals being advanced in this Congress
which may do more harm than good to our efforts to balance the budget.
Proponents of tax cuts will have to find a way to pay for those cuts,
and even as we debate this bill, we are told that the really big cuts
are still to come.
Supporters of the bill we consider today were originally considering
using these savings as a downpayment on those tax cuts. Now we are told
it will be put in a deficit-reduction lock box. Even if they siphon off
$12 billion in spending and supposedly put it toward deficit reduction,
it will still be necessary to find nearly $200 billion to finance those
tax cuts.
What we should be doing is making the tough choices on spending and
putting all of it toward deficit reduction. Anything less, and I will
be obligated to vote ``no.''
Deficit reduction is not going to be easy. I am prepared to make the
tough choices. But I am not going to cut today simply to make it easier
for others to borrow tomorrow.
Let me also indicate another strong objection to this bill. I
represent Decatur, IL, the Pride of the Prairie, a good town with good
people. Right now, Decatur is weathering a tremendous storm of labor-
management conflict. At three major industries we have disputes which
have thousands of people off the production lines. More to the point of
this debate, at the Bridgestone-Firestone plant, members of the United
Rubber Workers union are being permanently replaced.
This bill includes a ban on the President's executive order to deny
Federal contracts to companies hiring permanent replacements for
striking employees. I support the President and oppose the ban. I do
not take sides in any of the three labor situations. I urge everyone to
use the collective-bargaining process to reach agreements which put
people back to work. But I do support the right of workers to strike
without being permanently replaced.
For these reasons I cannot support the bill and urge a ``no'' vote.
Mr. KENNEDY of Massachusetts. Mr. Chairman, I stand before the
American people and this body in absolute shock at this bill. The
attack on the poor, the old, our children, our cities, and working
families continues and intensifies today.
It is hard to exaggerate just how serious this is.
Let us start with housing. This bill is an attack on homeless
children; 12,000 children living on America's streets or in its
shelters would have gotten real housing this year. They are being cut.
In Massachusetts, funding for the homeless is so tight that the State
is going to start sheltering the homeless in mental hospitals. Yet, the
Republicans stand ready to add to the homeless population.
Five thousand drug addicted or mentally disturbed residents of
supposedly senior-only public housing could have been moved out so that
our seniors could once again feel safe in their elevators and hallways,
and secure in their apartments.
This bill kills that funding.
Fourteen thousand elderly households would have been able to stay in
the apartments they have lived in for years through the Affordable
Housing Preservation Program.
This bill will put them on the streets because their landlords will
turn these buildings into luxury condos, and the Republicans are
cutting every new dollar for assistance to help them find affordable
alternatives.
Two thousand young people would have been able to earn their high
school degrees while apprenticing in the building trades--these are
innercity kids who could have straightened out their lives and become
working, productive members of our society through an innovative
program called Youthbuild.
This bill closes the door to the economic mainstream for these young
men and women.
Six hundred thirty thousand children and 530,000 seniors will be
forced to live in public housing that is substandard, unsafe, and
falling apart because of this bill.
The Republicans roll out Nancy Reagan to complain about the fight the
Democrats are waging against drugs. But it is the Republicans that are
cutting $32 million from drug elimination grants that could prevent
innocent children from being gunned down in their homes or on their
playgrounds.
Republicans talk about economic opportunity, yet they decimate the
summer jobs program.
They want to cut Healthy Start, a successful program that reduces
infant mortality in our innercities, where a higher percentage of
babies die than in many Third World nations.
The Republicans are eliminating the entire Energy Assistance Program.
This will force our senior citizens to choose between buying the
prescription drugs they need and heating their homes. It will mean tens
of thousands of children around the country will suffer from
malnutrition because their parents cannot both buy enough food and keep
their homes warm.
Finally, Mr. Chairman, the Republicans are sentencing 3,000 homeless
people with AIDS to an early death by denying them the housing aid they
would have otherwise qualified for. With stable homes, many AIDS
victims could expect to live 10 more years. But on the streets, they
are more likely to die within 6 months. Another 50,000 people with AIDS
will never be assured of housing because this bill completely
eliminates the housing for people with AIDS funding.
By any measure of good policy, by any measure of decency, this bill
is a bad bill. We must balance our budget, and we can balance our
budget, but we must not and need not balance it on the backs of
children and old people.
Mr. KNOLLENBERG. Mr. Chairman, I rise to express my strong support
for the rescissions bill before us today.
There is nothing like a rescission bill to get the Washington special
interest lobbying machine cranking.
I have a stack of letters and faxes in my office from people who are
opposed to this bill. They all say something like this: ``I know we
have to cut spending, but please save this or that program because it
costs so little and helps so many people.''
[[Page H3300]] I also have a pile of very serious-looking analyses
from the Clinton administration which say that children will starve--
senior citizens will be thrown out on the streets--and businesses will
cease to be competitive if we cut this or that program.
But you know what? I have yet to receive a letter from someone who
says, ``I don't have any ties to these programs. I do not receive my
salary from them. I do not receive other monetary benefit from them,
but I think you should continue to fund them anyway.''--not a single
one.
Folks, the American people are not buying into the ratings of
Washington's spendoholics.
They know that a nation's compassion is not measured by the amount of
money it spends.
They know that the effectiveness of government programs cannot be
judged solely by the goodness of their names or their intentions.
Above all, they know that the most compassionate thing this Congress
can do is lift the heavy burden of government debt off the back of
their kids and grandkids.
So Mr. Chairman, I would say to my colleagues: Listen closely to the
arguments against this bill. You will find the pleadings for compassion
have the hollow ring of self-interest.
Then, remember the silent majority. Remember the Americans who pay
the bills and their children and grandchildren who will pay them for
decades to come.
And cast your votes for them.
The CHAIRMAN. Under the rule, the Committee rises.
Accordingly the Committee rose; and the Speaker pro tempore [Mr.
Linder] having assumed the chair, Mr. Bereuter, Chairman of the
Committee of the Whole House on the State of the Union, reported that
that Committee, having had under consideration the bill (H.R. 1158)
making emergency supplemental appropriations for additional disaster
assistance and making rescissions for the fiscal year ending September
30, 1995, and for other purposes, pursuant to House Resolution 115,
reported the bill back to the House with an amendment adopted by the
Committee of the Whole.
The SPEAKER pro tempore. Under the rule, the previous question is
ordered.
Is a separate vote demanded on any amendment to the amendment in the
nature of a substitute adopted by the Committee of the Whole? If not,
the question is on the amendment.
The amendment was agreed to.
The SPEAKER pro tempore. The question is on the engrossment and third
reading of the bill.
The bill was ordered to be engrossed and read a third time, and was
read the third time.

motion to recommit offered by mr. obey

Mr. OBEY. Mr. Speaker, I offer a motion to recommit.
The SPEAKER pro tempore. Is the gentleman opposed to the bill?
Mr. OBEY. I certainly am, Mr. Speaker.
The SPEAKER pro tempore. The Clerk will report the motion to
recommit.
The Clerk read as follows:

Mr. Obey moves to recommit the bill, H.R. 1158, to the
Committee on Appropriations with instructions to report back
the same to the House forthwith with the following
amendments:
1. Disaster Assistance: On page 2 line 15, strike
``$5,360,000,000'' and insert ``$536,000,000''.
2. WIC, Women, Infants and Children: On page 6, strike
lines 17 through 22.
3. Training & Employment Services: On page 23 line 10,
strike ``$1,601,850,000'' and insert ``$939,350,000''. On
page 23 lines 13 & 14, strike ``$12,500,000 for the School-
to-Work Opportunities Act,''. On page 23, strike lines 23
through 25.
4. Community Services Employment for Older Americans: On
page 24 strike lines 1 through 9.
5. Health Resources and Services: On page 25 line 12,
strike ``$53,925,000'' and insert ``$43,925,000''.
6. Low Income Energy Assistance: On page 27, strike lines 2
through 6.
7. Education Reform: On page 28 line 14, strike
``$186,030,000'' and insert ``$103,530,000''. On page 28 line
15, strike ``$142,000,000'' and insert ``$83,000,000''. On
page 28 line 16, strike ``$21,530,000'' and insert
``$10,530,000''. On page 28 line 19 after the word ``Act''
strike all through the word ``partnerships'' on line 23.
8. Education for the Disadvantaged: On page 29 line 4
strike all after ``103-333,'' through line 7 and insert
``$8,270,000 from part E, section 1501 are rescinded.''
9. School Improvement: On page 29 line 16, strike
``$747,021,000'' and insert ``$327,021,000''. On page 29 line
18, strike ``$100,000,000'' and insert ``$80,000,000''. On
page 29 line 18, strike ``$471,962,000'' and insert
``$71,962,000''.
10. Student Financial Assistance: On page 31 line 6, strike
``$187,475,000'' and insert ``$124,100,000''. On page 31 line
7 & 8, strike ``part A-4 and''.
11. Corporation for Public Broadcasting: On page 33 line
20, strike ``$47,000,000'' and insert ``$31,000,000''. On
page 33 line 22, strike ``$94,000,000'' and insert
``$34,000,000''.
12. Assisted Housing: On page 49 line 14, strike
``$5,733,400,000'' and insert ``$5,018,400,000''. On page 49
line 17, strike ``$1,157,000,000'' and insert
``$467,000,000''. On page 50 line 4, strike ``$90,000,000''
and insert ``$65,000,000''. On page 50, strike lines 22
through 26.

Mr. OBEY (during the reading). Mr. Speaker, I ask unanimous consent
that the motion to recommit be considered as read and printed in the
Record.
The SPEAKER pro tempore. Is there objection to the request of the
gentleman from Wisconsin?
There was no objection.
The SPEAKER pro tempore. The gentleman from Wisconsin [Mr. Obey] is
recognized for 5 minutes in support of his motion to recommit.
Mr. OBEY. Mr. Speaker, I yield to the gentleman from California [Mr.
Berman].
Mr. BERMAN. Mr. Speaker, this bill unfairly and without precedent
ties disaster assistance for California's flood and earthquake victims
to cuts in programs for low-income seniors and children. Because of
that--in spite of how the Northridge Earthquake pounded my
congressional district--I must oppose this bill.
But I also oppose the motion to recommit.
FEMA needs this money to repair earthquake damage to over 200 public
schools, to libraries and hospitals, to police stations, museums, and
homeless shelters.
More victims applied for Federal assistance from the Northridge
Earthquake than from Hurricanes Hugo and Andrew, and the floods in the
Midwest, Georgia, and Texas combined.
After the fact, it is wrong to shift funding from grants to loan
guarantees, and shift the entire responsibility onto California's back
without regard to its ability to pay. This is the mother of all
unfunded mandates.
Do not take out--on my constituents and those of Representatives
McKeon, Beilenson, Farr, Woolsey, Riggs, and others--your anger at Pete
Wilson's failure to do what he should have done for disaster victims--
and your anger at watching the Governor try to launch his Presidential
campaign by blasting Washington while shirking his own responsibility
to the victims of earthquakes and floods. Being victimized by Mother
Nature is bad enough. We should not be victimized anew by Congress.
That is why I oppose the motion to recommit.
Mr. OBEY. Mr. Speaker, this motion to recommit is simple. This House
can choose to provide 100 percent of the aid to disaster victims
contained in this bill and still at the same time reduce by about one-
third the hit that most State and local governments will take as a
result of the rescissions proposed in this bill. We can do that and at
the same time increase the total savings contained in the bill.
You ask how. You simply ask California and other States receiving
disaster aid to assume the paper in the transaction instead of the
Federal Government. Somebody has to borrow money to pay the victims of
disasters. The committee is proposing that the Federal Government do
it. We are proposing that the State governments do it.
As those on the other side of the aisle are fond of saying, we are in
a new era. The old system of disaster aid is no longer viable. We
cannot provide the aid outside of the budget targets, and we cannot
have Uncle Sam picking up 98 percent of the tab.
What this motion would mean is that a lot of victims of other things
in this society, namely, a lot of children and old people who live at
the margins throughout the United States, will not have to pay for the
California disaster.
This recommittal motion means big bucks for kids and seniors. It
means big bucks for your Governor, your mayor, your local schools. We
can restore Healthy Start and WIC, PBS for preschoolers, half a billion
to help protect quality in elementary and secondary schools, we can
restore drug-free schools, we can restore job training and school-to-
work and the summer jobs programs. For the elderly we can restore fuel
assistance, housing programs, and older-worker programs.
This motion will mean $400 million to the State of New York, $80
million for
[[Page H3301]] Wisconsin, $85 million for North Carolina, it means $200
million for Ohio, $240 million for Pennsylvania, $87 million for
Tennessee, $130 million for Texas, $180 million for Illinois, about $80
million for Indiana, et cetera, et cetera. This can happen. You can
make it happen. You can take this money and put it back in your home
States.
It is up to you. All it takes is a decision on your part to put your
State ahead of national politics, a decision to put your standing with
your constituents ahead of your standing with the Republican caucus, I
would say to my friends on this
side of the aisle. In fact, this amendment saves $200 million more
than the committee bill.

You can take that money and totally eliminate the cut made in the
next fiscal year by the Human Resources Committee in the school lunch
program and still have the same amount of money left to pay down the
deficit. It is up to you.

{time} 1245

It is up to you. I would ask you to make war on the status quo rather
than making war on kids and old folks. This simply sets up a loan
guarantee system under which States will finance disaster programs. It
fully assures that every victim of disasters will get the full amount
due to them, but it shares that burden much more equitably. It is an
idea whose time has come.
The gentleman from Georgia [Mr. Gingrich] himself, as the Speaker,
indicates there will have to be offsets in the future. This creates a
way to provide those offsets in a much more humane way than the bill.
It helps you to help your own States.
I understand some Members from California may be opposed to it. But
if you are from any other State, you are cutting off your own State's
interest if you vote against the motion to recommit.
Mr. Speaker, I yield back the balance of my time.
Mr. LIVINGSTON. Mr. Speaker, I rise to respond to the gentleman.
The SPEAKER pro tempore (Mr. Linder). Is the gentleman opposed to the
motion to recommit?
Mr. LIVINGSTON. I am, Mr. Speaker.
The SPEAKER pro tempore. The gentleman is recognized for 5 minutes in
opposition to the motion to recommit.
Mr. LIVINGSTON. Mr. Speaker, I yield to the gentleman from California
[Mr. Lewis], the distinguished chairman of the Subcommittee on VA, HUD,
and Independent Agencies Appropriations.
Mr. LEWIS of California. I thank the gentleman from Louisiana for
yielding to me.
Mr. Speaker, I rise simply to say that FEMA comes under our
responsibility in my subcommittee. We look closely at all of those
agencies in the committee process. Halfway through the process, there
came forward a request from FEMA for a supplemental to meet the
disasters across the country in which some 40 States are effected,
California indeed being among them.
The request was originally for $6.7 billion. We examined it and
trimmed it back 20 percent. Indeed, having done that, I now see my
State, essentially, under water one more time and I wonder about the
rescission we made.
The fact is, however, that this country, for years, has reflected the
best of the work of the House by standing together in support of the
regions of the country which have faced disaster. This is such a time,
and we urge the House to stand together one more time.
Mr. LIVINGSTON. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may
consume.
Mr. Speaker, I rise in opposition to the motion to recommit. It is
similar to, but different from, that offered by the gentleman from
Illinois [Mr. Durbin] in committee, which lost 20 to 35 in the
committee. It eliminates $4.8 billion of emergency funding which we
have paid for in this bill, the first time an emergency supplemental
has ever been paid for in history.
This amendment redistributes $4.6 billion back into programs which we
decided were low priority, duplicative, unnecessary from excessive
growth in 1995 and 1994, and which were flushed in the pipeline from
unobligated balances. It is based on the assumption that the
authorizing committees will create a loan guarantee trust fund for
disasters.
What happens if they do not? The fact is we will have redistributed
$4.6 billion in emergency funds, the money will be gone, the FEMA money
will not get to California and the other 40 States that need money now.
This is a gutting amendment. It upsets the balance that is carefully
crafted in this whole bill. It denies money promised to those people
most in distress, as exemplified by the floods in California this year.
And finally, I would only say to my friends that this shortens the
first major step toward our reformation and reliance on common sense.
I urge all of the body, for the future of America's children and
their prosperity, vote ``no'' to the motion to recommit. Vote ``aye''
on this first significant step to a balanced budget on the largest
rescission in history. Vote ``aye'' on the bill and final passage.
We have heard a lot of wailing and gnashing of teeth and seen much
beating of breasts by drug store liberals who never saw a program they
did not like, or a victim they did not wish to champion.
For 63 years, since the inception of the New Deal, they have
bombasted their way through history, bleating for the poor, the hungry,
the infirm, the elderly, the afflicted, the impaired, and the
disadvantaged, as well as the obnoxious, the loud, the boisterous, the
most obtrusive, and the most squaking of wheels.
In the beginning, they had a strong case that life had overwhelmed
the ability of the truly deserving to help themselves, but as time
passed their case became weaker, less convincing, and more
disingenuous.
Government became larger, more encompassing, more costly, less
efficient, more demanding and intrusive, and yes, even less
compassionate.
Redundancy of programs, waste, inefficiency, abusiveness, and even
symptoms of totalitarian intolerance became the order of the day as we
woke to the news of an energy shortage which was fabricated, endangered
species which were not really endangered, environmental and tax cases
which bankrupted good hard-working families for failure of technical
fulfillment, and atrocities like the Weaver case and Waco.
Under the so called liberal Democrat domination of the House of
Representatives, we saw Government move from the role of servant of the
people, to become a master, which often dictates without recourse or
recompense.
Those liberal Members of Congress, who so badly ran their own
affairs, witnessed by the restaurant, post office and bank scandals,
became arrogant and insensitive in 63 years of almost unfettered
domination of the political scene, and they lost sight of the real
victims of today's society.
The poor, average, working stiff, the 9 to 5'er who often has to
moonlight to supplement his or her income; whose spouse so often has to
work one or two jobs as well to help raise their kids, to pay tuition,
and medical bills; who support their parents, or their church, their
Scout troop, or their favorite charity.
Where is the liberal bleating for the honest, hard working, law
abiding, uncomplaining, struggling average person, in whose pockets,
wallets, and purses dig the liberal who wears his compassion on his
sleeve as long as he can take someone else's money to buy a few extra
votes to remain in power? Where is the compassion for that most
deserving of people who asks for nothing but to be left to raise his
family without a Government handout, subsidy, or enticement?
When will we in Congress have the guts to admit to the American
citizens that ``We have `helped' you enough and now it is time for us
to help you help yourselves?''
We should stop increasing Governments' role, raising taxes,
increasing regulations, and reducing freedom and liberty, and start
doing that which at the very least we should have done in all common
sense long ago. We should rein in our uncontrolled spending, reduce our
deficit, balance our budget, stop borrowing against the future of our
children and grandchildren, and bring an end to the modern tyranny of
the do-gooders.
We can indeed help those who are truly in need by maintaining a
slimmer, more efficient, less redundant, more effective safety net. We
can have a Government which is leaner, not meaner, but we must do so in
a smarter, more thoughtful fashion than merely throwing taxpayers
dollars at every cause.
Compassion has become a weapon in the hands of the obtuse and
uninformed, and its victims are the people whom we should most wish to
help--the average American working citizen and his or her family.
Mr. Speaker, I yield back the balance of my time.
The SPEAKER pro tempore. Without objection, the previous question is
ordered on the motion to recommit.
There was no objection.
[[Page H3302]] The SPEAKER pro tempore. The question is on the motion
to recommit.
The question was taken and the Speaker pro tempore announced that the
noes appeared to have it.
Mr. OBEY. Mr. Speaker, I object to the vote on the ground that a
quorum is not present and make the point of order that a quorum is not
present.
The SPEAKER pro tempore. Evidently a quorum is not present.
The Sergeant at Arms will notify absent Members.
Pursuant to the provisions of clause 5 of rule XV, the Chair
announces that he will reduce to a minimum of 5 minutes the period of
time within which a vote by electronic device, if ordered, will be
taken on the question of passage.
This is a 15-minute vote on the motion to recommit.
The vote was taken by electronic device, and there were--yeas 185,
nays 242, not voting 7, as follows:

[Roll No. 250]

YEAS--185

Abercrombie
Ackerman
Andrews
Baesler
Baldacci
Barcia
Barrett (WI)
Becerra
Bentsen
Bevill
Bishop
Bonior
Borski
Boucher
Browder
Brown (FL)
Brown (OH)
Bryant (TX)
Cardin
Chapman
Clay
Clayton
Clement
Clyburn
Coleman
Collins (MI)
Conyers
Costello
Coyne
Cramer
Danner
de la Garza
Deal
DeFazio
DeLauro
Dellums
Deutsch
Dicks
Dingell
Doggett
Doyle
Durbin
Edwards
Engel
Eshoo
Evans
Fattah
Fields (LA)
Filner
Flake
Foglietta
Ford
Frank (MA)
Frost
Furse
Gejdenson
Gephardt
Geren
Gibbons
Gonzalez
Gordon
Green
Gutierrez
Hall (OH)
Hall (TX)
Hamilton
Hastings (FL)
Hayes
Hefner
Hilliard
Hinchey
Holden
Hoyer
Jackson-Lee
Jacobs
Jefferson
Johnson (SD)
Johnston
Kanjorski
Kaptur
Kennedy (MA)
Kennedy (RI)
Kennelly
Kildee
Kleczka
Klink
LaFalce
Laughlin
Levin
Lincoln
Lipinski
Lowey
Luther
Maloney
Manton
Markey
Martinez
Mascara
McCarthy
McDermott
McHale
McKinney
McNulty
Meehan
Meek
Menendez
Mfume
Miller (CA)
Minge
Mink
Moakley
Mollohan
Montgomery
Moran
Murtha
Nadler
Neal
Oberstar
Obey
Olver
Ortiz
Orton
Owens
Pallone
Parker
Pastor
Payne (NJ)
Payne (VA)
Pelosi
Peterson (FL)
Peterson (MN)
Pickett
Pomeroy
Poshard
Rahall
Rangel
Reed
Reynolds
Richardson
Rivers
Roemer
Rose
Roybal-Allard
Rush
Sabo
Sanders
Sawyer
Schroeder
Schumer
Scott
Serrano
Sisisky
Skaggs
Skelton
Slaughter
Spratt
Stark
Stenholm
Stokes
Studds
Stupak
Tanner
Tauzin
Taylor (MS)
Tejeda
Thompson
Thornton
Thurman
Torres
Torricelli
Towns
Traficant
Velazquez
Vento
Visclosky
Volkmer
Ward
Waters
Watt (NC)
Williams
Wilson
Wise
Wyden
Wynn
Yates

NAYS--242

Allard
Archer
Armey
Bachus
Baker (CA)
Baker (LA)
Ballenger
Barr
Barrett (NE)
Bartlett
Barton
Bass
Bateman
Beilenson
Bereuter
Berman
Bilbray
Bilirakis
Bliley
Blute
Boehlert
Boehner
Bonilla
Bono
Brewster
Brown (CA)
Brownback
Bryant (TN)
Bunn
Bunning
Burr
Burton
Buyer
Callahan
Calvert
Camp
Canady
Castle
Chabot
Chambliss
Chenoweth
Christensen
Chrysler
Clinger
Coble
Coburn
Collins (GA)
Combest
Condit
Cooley
Cox
Crane
Crapo
Cremeans
Cunningham
Davis
DeLay
Diaz-Balart
Dickey
Dixon
Dooley
Doolittle
Dornan
Dreier
Duncan
Dunn
Ehlers
Ehrlich
Emerson
English
Ensign
Everett
Ewing
Farr
Fawell
Fazio
Fields (TX)
Flanagan
Foley
Forbes
Fowler
Fox
Franks (NJ)
Frelinghuysen
Frisa
Funderburk
Gallegly
Ganske
Gekas
Gilchrest
Gillmor
Gilman
Goodlatte
Goodling
Goss
Graham
Greenwood
Gunderson
Gutknecht
Hancock
Hansen
Harman
Hastert
Hastings (WA)
Hayworth
Hefley
Heineman
Herger
Hilleary
Hobson
Hoekstra
Hoke
Horn
Hostettler
Houghton
Hunter
Hutchinson
Hyde
Inglis
Istook
Johnson, Sam
Jones
Kasich
Kelly
Kim
King
Kingston
Klug
Knollenberg
Kolbe
LaHood
Lantos
Largent
Latham
LaTourette
Lazio
Leach
Lewis (CA)
Lewis (KY)
Lightfoot
Linder
Livingston
LoBiondo
Lofgren
Longley
Lucas
Manzullo
Martini
Matsui
McCollum
McCrery
McDade
McHugh
McInnis
McIntosh
McKeon
Metcalf
Meyers
Mica
Miller (FL)
Mineta
Molinari
Moorhead
Morella
Myers
Myrick
Nethercutt
Neumann
Ney
Norwood
Nussle
Oxley
Packard
Paxon
Petri
Pombo
Porter
Portman
Pryce
Quillen
Quinn
Radanovich
Ramstad
Regula
Riggs
Roberts
Rogers
Rohrabacher
Ros-Lehtinen
Roth
Roukema
Royce
Salmon
Sanford
Saxton
Scarborough
Schaefer
Schiff
Seastrand
Sensenbrenner
Shadegg
Shaw
Shays
Shuster
Skeen
Smith (MI)
Smith (NJ)
Smith (TX)
Smith (WA)
Solomon
Souder
Spence
Stearns
Stockman
Stump
Talent
Tate
Taylor (NC)
Thomas
Thornberry
Tiahrt
Torkildsen
Upton
Vucanovich
Waldholtz
Walker
Walsh
Wamp
Watts (OK)
Waxman
Weldon (FL)
Weldon (PA)
Weller
White
Whitfield
Wicker
Wolf
Woolsey
Young (AK)
Young (FL)
Zeliff
Zimmer

NOT VOTING--7

Collins (IL)
Cubin
Franks (CT)
Johnson (CT)
Johnson, E.B.
Lewis (GA)
Tucker

{time} 1312

The Clerk announced the following pair:
On this vote:

Mrs. Collins of Illinois for, with Mrs. Cubin against.

Mr. ENGLISH of Pennsylvania, Mr. MINETA, Ms. WOOLSEY, and Mr. LANTOS
changed their vote from ``yea'' to ``nay.''
Mr. TORRICELLI and Mr. WILSON changed their vote from ``nay'' to
``yea.''
So the motion to recommit was rejected.
The result of the vote was announced as above recorded.
Mr. OBEY. Mr. Speaker, I ask unanimous consent to speak out of order
for 1 minute.
The SPEAKER pro tempore. Without objection, the chair recognizes the
gentleman from Wisconsin [Mr. Obey] for 1 minute.
There was no objection.
Mr. OBEY. Mr. Speaker, I think the Members of the House ought to know
before the vote that we have just been informed that the gentleman from
Ohio [Mr. Kasich], the chairman of the Committee on the Budget, has
indicated that, despite the passage of the Brewster amendment
yesterday, that he intends to use the savings in this bill in his
assumptions for the tax cut that he has presented to the Committee on
the Budget. It seems to me Members ought to know that before they vote.
The SPEAKER pro tempore. The question is on the passage of the bill.
Pursuant to clause 7 of rule XV, the yeas and nays are ordered.
The Chair reminds Members that this is a 5-minute vote.
The vote was taken by electronic device, and there were--yeas 227,
nays 200, not voting 7, as follows:

[Roll No. 251]

YEAS--227

Allard
Archer
Armey
Bachus
Baker (CA)
Baker (LA)
Ballenger
Barr
Barrett (NE)
Bartlett
Barton
Bass
Bateman
Bereuter
Bilbray
Bilirakis
Bliley
Blute
Boehner
Bonilla
Bono
Brewster
Brownback
Bryant (TN)
Bunn
Bunning
Burr
Burton
Buyer
Callahan
Calvert
Camp
Canady
Castle
Chabot
Chambliss
Chenoweth
Christensen
Chrysler
Clinger
Coble
Coburn
Collins (GA)
Combest
Cooley
Cox
Crane
Crapo
Cremeans
Cunningham
Davis
DeLay
Diaz-Balart
Dickey
Dooley
Doolittle
Dornan
Dreier
Duncan
Dunn
Ehlers
Ehrlich
Emerson
English
Ensign
Everett
Ewing
Fawell
Fields (TX)
Flanagan
Foley
Forbes
Fowler
Fox
Franks (NJ)
Frelinghuysen
Frisa
Funderburk
Gallegly
Ganske
Gekas
Gilchrest
Gillmor
Gilman
Goodlatte
Goodling
Goss
Graham
Greenwood
Gunderson
Gutknecht
Hancock
Hansen
Hastert
Hastings (WA)
Hayworth
Hefley
Heineman
Herger
Hilleary
Hobson
Hoekstra
Hoke
Horn
Hostettler
Houghton
Hunter
Hutchinson
Hyde
Inglis
Istook
Johnson (CT)
Johnson, Sam
Jones
Kasich
Kelly
Kim
King
Kingston
Klug
Knollenberg
Kolbe
Largent
Latham
LaTourette
Laughlin
Lazio
Leach
Lewis (CA)
Lewis (KY)
Lightfoot
Linder
Livingston
LoBiondo
Longley
Lucas
Manzullo
Martini
[[Page H3303]] McCollum
McCrery
McDade
McHugh
McInnis
McIntosh
McKeon
Metcalf
Meyers
Mica
Miller (FL)
Molinari
Montgomery
Moorhead
Morella
Myrick
Nethercutt
Neumann
Norwood
Nussle
Oxley
Packard
Parker
Paxon
Petri
Pombo
Porter
Portman
Pryce
Quillen
Quinn
Radanovich
Ramstad
Regula
Riggs
Roberts
Rogers
Rohrabacher
Ros-Lehtinen
Roth
Roukema
Royce
Salmon
Sanford
Saxton
Scarborough
Schaefer
Schiff
Seastrand
Sensenbrenner
Shadegg
Shaw
Shuster
Skeen
Smith (MI)
Smith (NJ)
Smith (TX)
Smith (WA)
Solomon
Souder
Spence
Stearns
Stockman
Stump
Talent
Tate
Taylor (NC)
Thomas
Thornberry
Tiahrt
Upton
Visclosky
Vucanovich
Waldholtz
Walker
Walsh
Wamp
Watts (OK)
Weldon (FL)
Weldon (PA)
Weller
White
Whitfield
Wicker
Wolf
Young (AK)
Young (FL)
Zeliff
Zimmer

NAYS--200

Abercrombie
Ackerman
Andrews
Baesler
Baldacci
Barcia
Barrett (WI)
Becerra
Beilenson
Bentsen
Berman
Bevill
Bishop
Boehlert
Bonior
Borski
Boucher
Browder
Brown (CA)
Brown (FL)
Brown (OH)
Cardin
Chapman
Clay
Clayton
Clement
Clyburn
Coleman
Collins (MI)
Condit
Conyers
Costello
Coyne
Cramer
Danner
de la Garza
Deal
DeFazio
DeLauro
Dellums
Deutsch
Dicks
Dingell
Dixon
Doggett
Doyle
Durbin
Edwards
Engel
Eshoo
Evans
Farr
Fattah
Fazio
Fields (LA)
Filner
Flake
Foglietta
Ford
Frank (MA)
Franks (CT)
Frost
Furse
Gejdenson
Gephardt
Geren
Gibbons
Gonzalez
Gordon
Green
Gutierrez
Hall (OH)
Hall (TX)
Hamilton
Harman
Hastings (FL)
Hayes
Hefner
Hilliard
Hinchey
Holden
Hoyer
Jackson-Lee
Jacobs
Jefferson
Johnson (SD)
Johnston
Kanjorski
Kaptur
Kennedy (MA)
Kennedy (RI)
Kennelly
Kildee
Kleczka
Klink
LaFalce
LaHood
Lantos
Levin
Lipinski
Lofgren
Lowey
Luther
Maloney
Manton
Markey
Martinez
Mascara
Matsui
McCarthy
McDermott
McHale
McKinney
McNulty
Meehan
Meek
Menendez
Mfume
Miller (CA)
Mineta
Minge
Mink
Moakley
Mollohan
Moran
Murtha
Nadler
Neal
Ney
Oberstar
Obey
Olver
Ortiz
Orton
Owens
Pallone
Pastor
Payne (NJ)
Payne (VA)
Pelosi
Peterson (FL)
Peterson (MN)
Pickett
Pomeroy
Poshard
Rahall
Rangel
Reed
Reynolds
Richardson
Rivers
Roemer
Rose
Roybal-Allard
Rush
Sabo
Sanders
Sawyer
Schroeder
Schumer
Scott
Serrano
Shays
Sisisky
Skaggs
Skelton
Slaughter
Spratt
Stark
Stenholm
Stokes
Studds
Stupak
Tanner
Tauzin
Taylor (MS)
Tejeda
Thompson
Thornton
Thurman
Torkildsen
Torres
Torricelli
Towns
Traficant
Tucker
Velazquez
Vento
Volkmer
Ward
Waters
Watt (NC)
Waxman
Williams
Wilson
Wise
Woolsey
Wyden
Wynn
Yates

NOT VOTING--7

Bryant (TX)
Collins (IL)
Cubin
Johnson, E.B.
Lewis (GA)
Lincoln
Myers

{time} 1323

The Clerk announced the following pair:
On this vote:

Mrs. Cubin for, with Mrs. Collins of Illinois against.

So the bill was passed.
The result of the vote was announced as above recorded.
A motion to recommit was laid on the table.
personal explanation

Mrs. LINCOLN. Mr. Speaker, during rollcall vote 251 on H.R. 1158, the
rescission bill, I was unavoidably detained during that 5-minute vote.
Had I been present, I would have voted ``no'' on the rescission
package.

announcement by the speaker pro tempore

The SPEAKER pro tempore (Mr. Linder). Without objection, the Record
will be corrected to indicate that the vote on final passage was
automatically and a yea and nay vote under the new rule XV, clause 7.
There was no objection.

____________________