H 5682 CONGRESSIONAL RECORD — HOUSE June 7, 1995

which I do not even think should be in

this bill. Does that mean that we are

not going to have time to get to anybody else’s amendment?

Mr. GILMAN. Mr. Speaker, will the

gentlewoman yield?

Mrs. SCHROEDER. I yield to the gentleman from New York.

Mr. GILMAN. Mr. Speaker, it will all

depend on the amount of time that we

can conserve in the remaining time

that has been allotted to us by the

rule. We have an hour and 45 minutes

remaining, and we will try to work

with the minority as best we can.

Mr. FRANK of Massachusetts. Mr.

Speaker, will the gentlewoman yield?

Mrs. SCHROEDER. I yield to the gentleman from Massachusetts.

Mr. FRANK of Massachusetts. Mr.

Speaker, I would just like to note that

under this unfair rule we have, the

quorum call, a totally unnecessary

quorum call came out of the time for

amendments. We will probably have

one less amendment because for no

valid parliamentary reason, we spent

about 25 minutes with a quorum call so

somebody could get a bigger audience.

And under the crazy rule we have, a

quorum call comes out of the time and

the quorum call has probably eclipsed

one amendment.

Mr. GILMAN. Mr. Speaker, if the

gentlewoman will continue to yield, let

me explain that on four occasions this

evening, I attempted to arrive at unanimous consent to cut back on the debate time so we would have additional

time left for other amendments.

Mr. FRANK of Massachusetts. Mr.

Speaker, if the gentlewoman will continue to yield, I do not regard it as an

acceptable trade-off that you cut off

debate time to have a quorum call. I do

not think cutting debate on important

amendments is an acceptable defense

of a very arbitrary and unfair rule.

CLARIFICATION SOUGHT CONCERNING DEBATE ON BOSNIA AMENDfMENT

Mr. ENGEL. Mr. Speaker, I ask unanimous consent to address the House for

1 minute.

The SPEAKER pro tempore. Is there

objection to the request of the gentleman from New York?

Mr. THOMAS. Mr. Speaker, reserving

the right to object, I will not object if

the request is something other than an

imploring of the chairman that someone else be allowed to offer an amendment. If the request is something other

than that, I will not object.

Mr. ENGEL. Mr. Speaker, will the

gentleman yield?

Mr. THOMAS. I yield to the gentleman from New York.

Mr. ENGEL. Mr. Speaker, I have a

question for the chairman.

Mr. THOMAS. Mr. Speaker, I withdraw my reservation of objection.

The SPEAKER pro tempore. Without

objection, the gentleman from New

York [Mr. ENGEL] is recognized for 1

minute.

There was no objection.

Mr. ENGEL. Mr. Speaker, I would

like to inquire of the chairman, with

the big events in Bosnia this past

week, we are dealing with a very, very

important foreign aid bill. I know that

the gentleman from Maryland [Mr.

HOYER] has an amendment which I am

sure the American people would like to

see debated.

I just find it incongruous that we are

being denied, for whatever reason; I am

not blaming anyone, but the way it is

working out, it seems that Mr. HOYER

will not be allowed to put forth his

amendment which would call for an

end to the arms embargo. I think this

is a very, very important vote on a

very important amendment at a very

important time.

I am wondering if I could somehow or

other ask unanimous consent or ask

the chairman if we can somehow get

some time to debate Mr. HOYER’s

amendment because I think the American people want to see us debate it

and it is too important to just push it

to the side.

Mr. GILMAN. Mr. Speaker, will the

gentleman yield?

Mr. ENGEL. I yield to the gentleman

from New York.

Mr. GILMAN. Mr. Speaker, I will be

pleased to respond to the gentleman.

We all share the concern about the

Bosnia situation. Tomorrow afternoon

we will be having a hearing on Bosnia

in the Committee on International Relations. I discussed the Bosnia amendment with the gentleman from Maryland [Mr. HOYER]. We talked about trying to have sufficient time to properly

debate that measure on a single standing bill rather than to take it up as

part of this in a very short and limited

period of time.

I assured Mr. HOYER that I would try

to work with him in bringing that

measure to the floor at an early date

following the consideration of this

measure.

fON BOSNIA

(Mr. HOYER asked and was given

permission to address the House for 1

minute.)

Mr. HOYER. Mr. Speaker, I thank

the gentleman from New York, the

chairman of the committee. As the

Members of this House know, I, along

with the gentleman from New York

[Mr. GILMAN] and others, offered an

amendment last year that dealt with

lifting the arms embargo to allow the

Bosnians to defend themselves. This

situation has gone on now for almost 3

years. The largest number of refugees

since the Second World War have been

created as a result of this confrontation and over 100,000 deaths. Genocide

is occurring.

I regret that it appears, based upon

the schedule that is going forward now,

that I will be precluded from offering

this amendment, which I believe is

critically timely today and will be

critically timely tomorrow.

I would hope that we could configure

the schedule tomorrow so that I would

have a half an hour to offer this

amendment at the end of the other

amendments so that this House can address this issue. It is critical. It is on

the front page of every newspaper in

Europe and the United States. It is in

the councils of the armed forces of

every NATO nation. And it seems to

me it is timely now for this Congress

to speak.

EMERGENCY SUPPLEMENTAL APPROPRIATIONS FOR ADDITIONAL

fDISASTER ASSISTANCE AND RESCISSIONS FOR FISCAL YEAR

1995—VETO MESSAGE FROM THE

PRESIDENT OF THE UNITED

STATES (H. DOC. NO. 104–83)

The Speaker pro tempore laid before

the House the following veto message

from the President of the United

States:

To the House of Representatives:

I am returning herewith without my

approval H.R. 1158, a bill providing for

emergency supplemental appropriations and rescissions for fiscal year

1995.

This disagreement is about priorities,

not deficit reduction. In fact, I want to

increase the deficit reduction in this

bill.

H.R. 1158 slashes needed investments

for education, national service, and the

environment, in order to avoid cutting

wasteful projects and other unnecessary expenditures. There are billions of

dollars in pork—unnecessary highway

demonstration projects, courthouses,

and other Federal buildings—that

could have been cut instead of these

critical investments. Indeed, the Senate bill made such cuts in order to

maintain productive investments, but

the House-Senate conference rejected

those cuts.

For example, H.R. 1158 would deprive

15,000 young adults of the opportunity

to serve their communities as

AmeriCorps members.

It would deprive 2,000 schools in 47

States of funds to train teachers and

devise comprehensive reforms to boost

academic standards.

It would reduce or eliminate

antiviolence and drug prevention programs serving nearly 20 million students.

It would prevent the creation and expansion of hundreds of community development banks and financial institutions that would spur job growth and

leverage billions of dollars of capital in

distressed communities across the

country.

And it would seriously hamper the

ability of States to maintain clean

drinking water, thus jeopardizing the

health of residents.

In the end, the Congress chose courthouses over education, pork barrel

highway projects over national service,

Government travel over clean water.

At my instruction, the Administration has provided alternatives to the