[Congressional Record Volume 140, Number 62 (Wednesday, May 18, 1994)]
[House]
[Page H]
From the Congressional Record Online through the Government Printing Office [www.gpo.gov]


[Congressional Record: May 18, 1994]
From the Congressional Record Online via GPO Access [wais.access.gpo.gov]

 
      PROVIDING FOR CONSIDERATION OF H.R. 4301, NATIONAL DEFENSE 
                 AUTHORIZATION ACT FOR FISCAL YEAR 1995

  Mr. FROST. Mr. Speaker, by direction of the Committee on Rules, I 
call up House Resolution 429 and ask for its immediate consideration.
  The Clerk read the resolution, as follows:

                              H. Res. 429

       Resolved, That at any time after the adoption of this 
     resolution the Speaker may, pursuant to clause 1(b) of rule 
     XXIII, declare the House resolved into the Committee of the 
     Whole House on the state of the Union for consideration of 
     the bill (H.R. 4301) to authorize appropriations for fiscal 
     year 1995 for military activities of the Department of 
     Defense, to prescribe military personnel strengths for 
     fiscal year 1995, and for other purposes. The first 
     reading of the bill shall be dispensed with. All points of 
     order against consideration of the bill are waived. 
     General debate shall be confined to the bill and the 
     amendments made in order by this resolution and shall not 
     exceed two hours equally divided and controlled by the 
     chairman and ranking minority member of the Committee on 
     Armed Services. After general debate the bill shall be 
     considered for amendment under the five-minute rule.
       Sec. 2. It shall be in order to consider as an original 
     bill for the purpose of amendment under the five-minute rule 
     the amendment in the nature of a substitute recommended by 
     the Committee on Armed Services now printed in the bill. The 
     committee amendment in the nature of a substitute shall be 
     considered as read. All points of order against the committee 
     amendment in the nature of a substitute are waived. No 
     amendment to the committee amendment in the nature of a 
     substitute shall be in order except the amendments printed in 
     the report of the Committee on Rules accompanying this 
     resolution and amendments en bloc described in section 4 of 
     this resolution. Except as specified in section 3, 4, or 5 of 
     this resolution, each amendment printed in the report shall 
     be considered only in the order printed and may be offered 
     only by a Member designated in the report. Each amendment 
     printed in the report shall be considered as read and shall 
     not be subject to a demand for division of the question in 
     the House or in the Committee of the Whole. Unless otherwise 
     specified in the report, each amendment printed in the report 
     shall be debatable for ten minutes equally divided and 
     controlled by the proponent and an opponent and shall not be 
     subject to amendment (except that pro forma amendments for 
     the purpose of debate may be offered by the chairman or 
     ranking minority member of the Committee on Armed Services). 
     All points of order against amendments printed in the report 
     are waived.
       Sec. 3 (a) After disposition of or postponement of further 
     proceedings on amendments printed in part 1 of the report of 
     the Committee on Rules accompanying this resolution, it shall 
     be in order to consider the amendments printed in part 2 of 
     the report of the Committee on Rules accompanying this 
     resolution. Such consideration shall begin with an additional 
     period of general debate, which shall be confined to 
     ballistic missile defense and shall not exceed twenty minutes 
     equally divided and controlled by the chairman and ranking 
     minority member of the Committee on Armed Services. If more 
     than one of the amendments printed in part 2 of the report is 
     adopted, only the last to be adopted shall be considered as 
     finally adopted and reported to the House.
       (b) After disposition of or postponement of further 
     proceedings on the amendments printed in part 2 of the 
     report, it shall be in order to consider the amendments 
     printed in part 3 of the report (relating to burdensharing).
       (c) After disposition of or postponement of further 
     proceedings on the amendments printed in part 3 of the 
     report, it shall be in order to consider the amendments 
     printed in part 4 of the report of the Committee on Rules 
     accompanying this resolution. Such consideration shall begin 
     with an additional period of general debate, which shall be 
     confined to the Trident II (D-5) missile and shall not exceed 
     twenty minutes equally divided and controlled by the chairman 
     and ranking minority member of the Committee on Armed 
     Services.
       (d) After disposition of or postponement of further 
     proceedings on the amendments printed in part 4 of the 
     report, it shall be in order to consider the amendment 
     printed in part 5 of the report (relating to the Seawolf 
     submarine).
       (e) After disposition of or postponement of further 
     proceedings on the amendment printed in part 5 of the report, 
     it shall be in order to consider any amendment printed in 
     part 1 of the report not previously considered.
       Sec. 4. It shall be in order at any time for the chairman 
     of the Committee on Armed Services or his designee to offer 
     amendments en bloc consisting of amendments printed in part 1 
     of the report of the Committee on Rules accompanying this 
     resolution or germane modifications of any such amendment. 
     Amendment en bloc offered pursuant to this section shall be 
     considered as read (except that modifications shall be 
     reported), shall be debatable for twenty minutes equally 
     divided and controlled by the chairman and ranking minority 
     member of the Committee on Armed Services, shall not be 
     subject to amendment, and shall not be subject to demand for 
     division of the question in the House or in the Committee of 
     the Whole. For the purpose of inclusion in such amendments en 
     bloc, an amendment printed in the form of a motion to strike 
     may be modified to the form of a germane perfecting amendment 
     to the text originally proposed to be stricken. All points of 
     order against such amendments en bloc are waived. The 
     original proponent of an amendment included in such 
     amendments en bloc may insert a statement in the 
     Congressional Record immediately before the disposition of 
     the amendments en bloc.
       Sec. 5. The chairman of the Committee of the Whole may 
     postpone until a time during further consideration in the 
     Committee of the Whole a request for a recorded vote on any 
     amendment made in order by this resolution. The chairman of 
     the Committee of the Whole may reduce to not less than five 
     minutes the time for voting by electronic device on any 
     postponed question that immediately follows another vote by 
     electronic device without intervening business, provided that 
     the time for voting by electronic device on the first in any 
     series of questions shall be not less than fifteen minutes. 
     The chairman of the Committee of the Whole may recognize for 
     consideration any amendment made in order by this resolution 
     out of the order printed, but not sooner than one hour after 
     the chairman of the Committee on Armed Services or a designee 
     announces from the floor a request to that effect.
       Sec. 6. After disposition of or continued postponement of 
     further proceedings on each of the amendments printed in the 
     report of the Committee on Rules accompanying this resolution 
     and any amendments offered pursuant to section 4 of this 
     resolution, the Committee of the Whole shall rise without 
     motion. No further consideration of the bill shall be in 
     order except pursuant to a subsequent order of the House.

                              {time}  1250

  The SPEAKER pro tempore (Mr. Montgomery). The gentleman from Texas 
[Mr. Frost] is recognized for 1 hour.
  Mr. FROST. Mr. Speaker, for the purposes of debate only, I yield the 
customary 30 minutes to the gentleman from New York [Mr. Solomon], 
pending which I yield myself such time as I may consume. During 
consideration of this resolution, all time yielded is for the purpose 
of debate only.
  (Mr. FROST asked and was given permission to revise and extend his 
remarks.)
  Mr. FROST. Mr. Speaker, House Resolution 429 provides for the initial 
consideration of H.R. 4301, the National Defense Authorization Act for 
Fiscal Year 1995. This resolution provides for 2 hours of general 
debate, equally divided and controlled by the chairman and ranking 
minority member of the Armed Services Committee. The rule makes in 
order the Armed Services Committee amendment in the nature of a 
substitute now printed in the bill as an original bill for the purpose 
of amendment. The substitute shall be considered as read. All points of 
order are waived against consideration of both the bill and the 
substitute.
  The rule makes in order only those amendments printed in the report 
to accompany the rule, certain amendments en bloc described in section 
4, and pro forma amendments if offered by the chairman or ranking 
minority member of the Armed Services Committee. Except as specified in 
section 3, 4, or 5 of the rule, the amendments shall be considered in 
the order and manner specified in the report. The rule provides that 
unless otherwise specified in the report, each amendment is debatable 
for 10 minutes equally divided and controlled. The amendments shall be 
considered as read and are not subject to amendment nor a demand for a 
division of the question. All points of order are waived against the 
amendments in the report.
  The rule provides for an additional period of 20 minutes of general 
debate on the subject of ballistic missile defense and an additional 
period of 20 minutes of general debate on the subject of the Trident II 
(D-5) missile. The amendments printed in part 2 of the report (relating 
to ballistic missile defense funding) will be considered under the 
king-of-the-hill procedures.
  The chairman of the Armed Services Committee or his designee is 
authorized to offer amendments en bloc consisting of the amendments 
printed in part 1 of the report and germane modifications thereto. The 
amendments en bloc shall be considered as read except that 
modifications will be read. The amendments en bloc are debatable for 20 
minutes equally divided and controlled by the chairman and the ranking 
minority member of the Armed Services Committee and are not subject to 
amendment nor a demand for a division of the question. The original 
proponents are permitted to insert statements in the Record. All points 
of order are waived against the amendments en bloc.
  The chairman of the Committee of the Whole is permitted to postpone 
consideration of a request for a recorded vote on any amendment and to 
reduce to 5 minutes the time for voting after the first series of 
votes.
  The chairman of the Committee of the Whole is permitted to recognize 
for consideration of any amendment printed in the report out of the 
order in which they are printed, but not sooner than 1 hour after the 
chairman of the Armed Services Committee or a designee announces from 
the floor a request to that effect. Finally, the rule provides that no 
further consideration of the bill shall be in order except as 
subsequently ordered by the House.
  Mr. Speaker, with adoption of this resolution we can begin the 
important debate on our Nation's defense policy. H.R. 4301 authorizes 
$262.8 billion for defense and for Department of Energy national 
security programs. This is about $900 million less than what was 
requested by the President, but $1.8 billion more than the amount 
appropriated for fiscal year 1994.
  H.R. 4301 provides funding authorizations for our Nation's defense 
activities, including procurement, research, development, test and 
evaluation, operation and maintenance, military personnel, defense 
conversion, and other items necessary to our national defense efforts.

  We are continuing to find our way in the post-cold war era. In 
previous years, the threat to our national security was easy to 
recognize--quite simply, it was the Soviet Union. We crafted a defense 
policy based on this threat, procured weapons systems based on this 
threat, and trained our military forces to deal with this threat.
  But the threat is changing. The former Soviet Union has undergone an 
extraordinary transformation, and is no longer the dominant military 
threat it once was. Instead, we are seeing other trouble spots breaking 
out throughout the world. Bosnia, Somalia, Korea, and Haiti all 
represent potential national security challenges to our country. And 
who knows where the next crisis will erupt?
  Mr. Speaker, the world remains a dangerous place. We cannot deceive 
ourselves into thinking that, just because the former Soviet Union has 
broken up, we can let down our guard. Armed conflict can arise at any 
time, at any place, requiring the use of American power to protect our 
national security interests. We must remain prepared to deal with those 
threats.
  H.R. 4301 provides the authorizations to ensure that we have the 
resources necessary to respond to threats to our national security. In 
ensures that the men and women who serve our Nation are well trained, 
and have the equipment and systems required to protect our shores and 
our interests in the world.
  Of course, even with the fine work of the Armed Services Committee in 
bringing this bill to the floor, policy issues remain to be debated. By 
adopting this resolution, we can begin that debate on issues such as 
ballistic missile defense, burdensharing, the Trident II missile, and 
the Seawolf nuclear attack submarine. Members will have the opportunity 
to address other critical issues later during further consideration of 
this bill.
  Mr. Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.
  Mr SOLOMON. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume.
  (Mr. SOLOMON asked and was given permission to revise and extend his 
remarks, and include extraneous material.)

                              {time}  1300

  Mr. SOLOMON. Mr. Speaker, I urge support for this rule.
  Mr. Speaker, my friend, the gentleman from Texas [Mr. Frost], has 
adequately explained the rule, so I will not go into detail about that. 
The rule, however, does make in order an en bloc package of 
miscellaneous amendments, and it provides for the consideration of 
other amendments in the specific areas that the gentleman from Texas 
has mentioned.
  I would like to assure the Members that this first rule is the 
byproduct of bipartisan consultation, and therefore, it deserves our 
support on this side of the aisle. I will be voting for this rule.
  I would also like to make clear, however, that several of the more 
controversial amendments listed in the en bloc package will be subject 
to separate consideration and separate votes, and that is as it should 
be. These are the last three amendments listed on the handout provided 
to Members.
  Having said all this, Mr. Speaker, I must also be very candid and let 
the Members know that Republican support for this rule today does not 
in any way bind us to support the next rule. If Members will recall, 
there were four rules last year on the defense bill. For this bill we 
expect only one additional rule, but indeed this present rule may very 
well be the calm before the storm. The really heavy lifting will come 
in the next rule. If that rule does not provide for a balanced 
consideration of the critical issues on which our Government must make 
some timely decisions, let me assure all the Members that all hell is 
going to break loose around here. I say that reluctantly, but with 
emphasis.
  Mr. Speaker, I have great respect for the chairman of the Committee 
on Armed Services and for the ranking Republican member. Those two 
gentlemen have established a record of bipartisan cooperation that 
should serve as a model for other committees. In fact, we would have a 
much better Congress if other committees operated in the same way that 
the Committee on Armed Services does under the leadership of the 
chairman, the gentleman from California [Mr. Dellums]. However, the 
Committee on Armed Services unfortunately has been 
straitjacketed by a series of budget resolutions and 
reconciliation bills that have torn the guts out of the defense budget. 
Add to all that the indecision, the vacillation, and the outright 
cowardice shown by this administration, and we are presented with a 
formula for disaster as far as the national defense of this country is 
concerned.
  Mr. Speaker, this defense authorization bill represents the latest 
installment in an ongoing effort to dismantle the security posture of 
the United States of America. The defense budget in real terms has 
declined by 35 percent since fiscal year 1985. That is 35 percent. And 
then the Clinton administration comes along and slashes another $120-
plus billion out of the defense budget, cuts made above and beyond the 
5-year phased reduction proposed by the previous administration. This 
year's defense cuts are so deep, and they are so unjustified in light 
of the global crises out there, that this President cannot meet the 
minimum spending levels his own Bottom-Up Review defined as necessary 
to protect the vital interests of the United States.
  Mr. Speaker, this Congress will live to rue the day it decided to go 
along with this irresponsible nonsense.
  Mr. Speaker, the ship of state is adrift. A lethal combination of 
factors is coming together. At the same time that defense cuts are 
disconnecting the ship's rudder, the administration, with the captain 
at the helm, cannot find a compass. I am not sure that he is even 
looking for one, if you look at his record on foreign policy. One thing 
we do know for sure, the administration is showing a growing 
intolerance of criticism and fervently wishes to squelch a 
congressional debate on peacekeeping, among other sensitive subjects.

  The distinguished Republican leader has filed three amendments on 
peacekeeping that must be included in the next rule or else there will 
be unanimous Republican opposition to that rule and probably to the 
bill itself.
  His first amendment would stop the shell game whereby the United 
Nations can charge the United States over 31 percent of the cost of the 
peacekeeping operation and then issue everybody a blue helmet without 
ever acknowledging the in-kind logistical and operational support that 
America is already providing and which makes the whole peacekeeping 
effort possible in the first place.
  In other words, we provide all the transportation and we take all the 
blue-helmeted soldiers into a strategic area; then we come back, and 
because we are not wearing the blue helmets, we do not even get credit 
for having participated. But we still have to shell out of our own 
pockets, the pockets of the taxpayers, another 31 percent of the cost. 
That means we end up paying 50, 60, or 70 percent of all these 
peacekeeping efforts that are going on all over the world.
  Why should we pay at both ends and never have our true contributions 
acknowledged, much less appreciated? I just think it is wrong.
  Bob Michel's second amendment would end the monstrous folly of 
placing U.S. troops under the operational command and control of 
foreigners. If you have looked at the operations in Somalia and other 
areas around the world, you know that is an absolute disgrace. It is 
the first time in the history of the United States that we have ever 
put American troops under foreign control, the consequences of which 
can only get much, much worse.
  The gentleman's third amendment would prohibit defense funds from 
going to the United Nations as payment for the U.S. assessment in 
support of a peacekeeping mission. Let the administration find that 
money somewhere else, preferably in the State Department budget. The 
pinstriped boys at the White House and the State Department might be a 
little less willing to sign up American troops for every misguided 
operation that comes along if they knew that they could not count on 
getting a blank check from the Pentagon, a blank check that the 
American taxpayers end up paying in the long run.
  Mr. Speaker, there are many other issues that need to be debated, and 
I hope the next rule for this bill, which should reach the floor on 
Friday, will provide for a fair debate. This is the most important bill 
to come before this Congress this year or any other year.
  It is the real reason why the Government of the United States was 
formed in the first place, to provide for a common defense. That is 
really what we are here for. I urge the Members to make sure that the 
rule next Friday is going to be a fair one. Again I urge support for 
this first rule today.
  Mr. Speaker, I include with my remarks the following materials to 
appear in the Record:

                                  OPEN VERSUS RESTRICTIVE RULES 95TH-103D CONG.                                 
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                                                              Open rules       Restrictive rules
                      Congress (years)                       Total rules ---------------------------------------
                                                              granted\1\  Number  Percent\2\  Number  Percent\3\
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
95th (1977-78).............................................          211     179         85       32         15 
96th (1979-80).............................................          214     161         75       53         25 
97th (1981-82).............................................          120      90         75       30         25 
98th (1983-84).............................................          155     105         68       50         32 
99th (1985-86).............................................          115      65         57       50         43 
100th (1987-88)............................................          123      66         54       57         46 
101st (1989-90)............................................          104      47         45       57         55 
102d (1991-92).............................................          109      37         34       72         66 
103d (1993-94).............................................           66      14         21       52         79 
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
\1\Total rules counted are all order of business resolutions reported from the Rules Committee which provide for
  the initial consideration of legislation, except rules on appropriations bills which only waive points of     
  order. Original jurisdiction measures reported as privileged are also not counted.                            
\2\Open rules are those which permit any Member to offer any germane amendment to a measure so long as it is    
  otherwise in compliance with the rules of the House. The parenthetical percentages are open rules as a percent
  of total rules granted.                                                                                       
\3\Restrictive rules are those which limit the number of amendments which can be offered, and include so-called 
  modified open and modified closed rules, as well as completely closed rule, and rules providing for           
  consideration in the House as opposed to the Committee of the Whole. The parenthetical percentages are        
  restrictive rules as a percent of total rules granted.                                                        
                                                                                                                
Sources: ``Rules Committee Calendars & Surveys of Activities,'' 95th-102d Cong.; ``Notices of Action Taken,''   
  Committee on Rules, 103d Cong., through May 18, 1994.                                                         


                                                        OPEN VERSUS RESTRICTIVE RULES: 103D CONG.                                                       
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                  Rule                                      Amendments                                                                  
   Rule number date reported      type       Bill number and subject         submitted         Amendments allowed         Disposition of rule and date  
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
H. Res. 58, Feb. 2, 1993......  MC        H.R. 1: Family and medical     30 (D-5; R-25)..  3 (D-0; R-3)..............  PQ: 246-176. A: 259-164. (Feb. 3,
                                           leave.                                                                       1993).                          
H. Res. 59, Feb. 3, 1993......  MC        H.R. 2: National Voter         19 (D-1; R-18)..  1 (D-0; R-1)..............  PQ: 248-171. A: 249-170. (Feb. 4,
                                           Registration Act.                                                            1993).                          
H. Res. 103, Feb. 23, 1993....  C         H.R. 920: Unemployment         7 (D-2; R-5)....  0 (D-0; R-0)..............  PQ: 243-172. A: 237-178. (Feb.   
                                           compensation.                                                                24, 1993).                      
H. Res. 106, Mar. 2, 1993.....  MC        H.R. 20: Hatch Act amendments  9 (D-1; R-8)....  3 (D-0; R-3)..............  PQ: 248-166. A: 249-163. (Mar. 3,
                                                                                                                        1993).                          
H. Res. 119, Mar. 9, 1993.....  MC        H.R. 4: NIH Revitalization     13 (d-4; R-9)...  8 (D-3; R-5)..............  PQ: 247-170. A: 248-170. (Mar.   
                                           Act of 1993.                                                                 10, 1993).                      
H. Res. 132, Mar. 17, 1993....  MC        H.R. 1335: Emergency           37 (D-8; R-29)..  1(not submitted) (D-1; R-   A: 240-185. (Mar. 18, 1993).     
                                           supplemental Appropriations.                     0).                                                         
H. Res. 133, Mar. 17, 1993....  MC        H. Con. Res. 64: Budget        14 (D-2; R-12)..  4 (1-D not submitted) (D-   PQ: 250-172. A: 251-172. (Mar.   
                                           resolution.                                      2; R-2).                    18, 1993).                      
H. Res. 138, Mar. 23, 1993....  MC        H.R. 670: Family planning      20 (D-8; R-12)..  9 (D-4; R-5)..............  PQ: 252-164. A: 247-169. (Mar.   
                                           amendments.                                                                  24, 1993).                      
H. Res. 147, Mar. 31, 1993....  C         H.R. 1430: Increase Public     6 (D-1; R-5)....  0 (D-0; R-0)..............  PQ: 244-168. A: 242-170. (Apr. 1,
                                           debt limit.                                                                  1993).                          
H. Res. 149 Apr. 1, 1993......  MC        H.R. 1578: Expedited           8 (D-1; R-7)....  3 (D-1; R-2)..............  A: 212-208. (Apr. 28, 1993).     
                                           Rescission Act of 1993.                                                                                      
H. Res. 164, May 4, 1993......  O         H.R. 820: Nate                 NA..............  NA........................  A: Voice Vote. (May 5, 1993).    
                                           Competitiveness Act.                                                                                         
H. Res. 171, May 18, 1993.....  O         H.R. 873: Gallatin Range Act   NA..............  NA........................  A: Voice Vote. (May 20, 1993).   
                                           of 1993.                                                                                                     
H. Res. 172, May 18, 1993.....  O         H.R. 1159: Passenger Vessel    NA..............  NA........................  A: 308-0 (May 24, 1993).         
                                           Safety Act.                                                                                                  
H. Res. 173 May 18, 1993......  MC        S.J. Res. 45: United States    6 (D-1; R-5)....  6 (D-1; R-5)..............  A: Voice Vote (May 20, 1993)     
                                           forces in Somalia.                                                                                           
H. Res. 183, May 25, 1993.....  O         H.R. 2244: 2d supplemental     NA..............  NA........................  A: 251-174. (May 26, 1993).      
                                           appropriations.                                                                                              
H. Res. 186, May 27, 1993.....  MC        H.R. 2264: Omnibus budget      51 (D-19; R-32).  8 (D-7; R-1)..............  PQ: 252-178. A: 236-194 (May 27, 
                                           reconciliation.                                                              1993).                          
H. Res. 192, June 9, 1993.....  MC        H.R. 2348: Legislative branch  50 (D-6; R-44)..  6 (D-3; R-3)..............  PQ: 240-177. A: 226-185. (June   
                                           appropriations.                                                              10, 1993).                      
H. Res. 193, June 10, 1993....  O         H.R. 2200: NASA authorization  NA..............  NA........................  A: Voice Vote. (June 14, 1993).  
H. Res. 195, June 14, 1993....  MC        H.R. 5: Striker replacement..  7 (D-4; R-3)....  2 (D-1; R-1)..............  A: 244-176.. (June 15, 1993).    
H. Res. 197, June 15, 1993....  MO        H.R. 2333: State Department.   53 (D-20; R-33).  27 (D-12; R-15)...........  A: 294-129. (June 16, 1993).     
                                           H.R. 2404: Foreign aid.                                                                                      
H. Res. 199, June 16, 1993....  C         H.R. 1876: Ext. of ``Fast      NA..............  NA........................  A: Voice Vote. (June 22, 1993).  
                                           Track''.                                                                                                     
H. Res. 200, June 16, 1993....  MC        H.R. 2295: Foreign operations  33 (D-11; R-22).  5 (D-1; R-4)..............  A: 263-160. (June 17, 1993).     
                                           appropriations.                                                                                              
H. Res. 201, June 17, 1993....  O         H.R. 2403: Treasury-postal     NA..............  NA........................  A: Voice Vote. (June 17, 1993).  
                                           appropriations.                                                                                              
H. Res. 203, June 22, 1993....  MO        H.R. 2445: Energy and Water    NA..............  NA........................  A: Voice Vote. (June 23, 1993).  
                                           appropriations.                                                                                              
H. Res. 206, June 23, 1993....  O         H.R. 2150: Coast Guard         NA..............  NA........................  A: 401-0. (July 30, 1993).       
                                           authorization.                                                                                               
H. Res. 217, July 14, 1993....  MO        H.R. 2010: National Service    NA..............  NA........................  A: 261-164. (July 21, 1993).     
                                           Trust Act.                                                                                                   
H. Res. 220, July 21, 1993....  MC        H.R. 2667: Disaster            14 (D-8; R-6)...  2 (D-2; R-0)..............  PQ: 245-178. F: 205-216. (July   
                                           assistance supplemental.                                                     22, 1993).                      
H. Res. 226, July 23, 1993....  MC        H.R. 2667: Disaster            15 (D-8; R-7)...  2 (D-2; R-0)..............  A: 224-205. (July 27, 1993).     
                                           assistance supplemental.                                                                                     
H. Res. 229, July 28, 1993....  MO        H.R. 2330: Intelligence        NA..............  NA........................  A: Voice Vote. (Aug. 3, 1993).   
                                           Authority Act, fiscal year                                                                                   
                                           1994.                                                                                                        
H. Res. 230, July 28, 1993....  O         H.R. 1964: Maritime            NA..............  NA........................  A: Voice Vote. (July 29, 1993).  
                                           Administration authority.                                                                                    
H. Res. 246, Aug. 6, 1993.....  MO        H.R. 2401: National Defense    149 (D-109; R-    ..........................  A: 246-172. (Sept. 8, 1993).     
                                           authority.                     40).                                                                          
H. Res. 248, Sept. 9, 1993....  MO        H.R. 2401: National defense    ................  ..........................  PQ: 237-169. A: 234-169. (Sept.  
                                           authorization.                                                               13, 1993).                      
H. Res. 250, Sept. 13, 1993...  MC        H.R. 1340: RTC Completion Act  12 (D-3; R-9)...  1 (D-1; R-0)..............  A: 213-191-1. (Sept. 14, 1993).  
H. Res. 254, Sept. 22, 1993...  MO        H.R. 2401: National Defense    ................  91 (D-67; R-24)...........  A: 241-182. (Sept. 28, 1993).    
                                           authorization.                                                                                               
H. Res. 262, Sept. 28, 1993...  O         H.R. 1845: National            NA..............  NA........................  A: 238-188 (10/06/93).           
                                           Biological Survey Act.                                                                                       
H. Res. 264, Sept. 28, 1993...  MC        H.R. 2351: Arts, humanities,   7 (D-0; R-7)....  3 (D-0; R-3)..............  PQ: 240-185. A: 225-195. (Oct.   
                                           museums.                                                                     14, 1993).                      
H. Res. 265, Sept. 29, 1993...  MC        H.R. 3167: Unemployment        3 (D-1; R-2)....  2 (D-1; R-1)..............  A: 239-150. (Oct. 15, 1993).     
                                           compensation amendments.                                                                                     
H. Res. 269, Oct. 6, 1993.....  MO        H.R. 2739: Aviation            N/A.............  N/A.......................  A: Voice Vote. (Oct. 7, 1993).   
                                           infrastructure investment.                                                                                   
H. Res. 273, Oct. 12, 1993....  MC        H.R. 3167: Unemployment        3 (D-1; R-2)....  2 (D-1; R-1)..............  PQ: 235-187. F: 149-254. (Oct.   
                                           compensation amendments.                                                     14, 1993).                      
H. Res. 274, Oct. 12, 1993....  MC        H.R. 1804: Goals 2000 Educate  15 (D-7; R-7; I-  10 (D-7; R-3).............  A: Voice Vote. (Oct. 13, 1993).  
                                           America Act.                   1).                                                                           
H. Res. 282, Oct. 20, 1993....  C         H.J. Res. 281: Continuing      N/A.............  N/A.......................  A: Voice Vote. (Oct. 21, 1993).  
                                           appropriations through Oct.                                                                                  
                                           28, 1993.                                                                                                    
H. Res. 286, Oct. 27, 1993....  O         H.R. 334: Lumbee Recognition   N/A.............  N/A.......................  A: Voice Vote. (Oct. 28, 1993).  
                                           Act.                                                                                                         
H. Res. 287, Oct. 27, 1993....  C         H.J. Res. 283: Continuing      1 (D-0; R-0)....  0.........................  A: 252-170. (Oct. 28, 1993).     
                                           appropriations resolution.                                                                                   
H. Res. 289, Oct. 28, 1993....  O         H.R. 2151: Maritime Security   N/A.............  N/A.......................  A: Voice Vote. (Nov. 3, 1993).   
                                           Act of 1993.                                                                                                 
H. Res. 293, Nov. 4, 1993.....  MC        H. Con. Res. 170: Troop        N/A.............  N/A.......................  A: 390-8. (Nov. 8, 1993).        
                                           withdrawal Somalia.                                                                                          
H. Res. 299, Nov. 8, 1993.....  MO        H.R. 1036: Employee            2 (D-1; R-1)....  N/A.......................  A: Voice Vote. (Nov. 9, 1993).   
                                           Retirement Act-1993.                                                                                         
H. Res. 302, Nov. 9, 1993.....  MC        H.R. 1025: Brady handgun bill  17 (D-6; R-11)..  4 (D-1; R-3)..............  A: 238-182. (Nov. 10, 1993).     
H. Res. 303, Nov. 9, 1993.....  O         H.R. 322: Mineral exploration  N/A.............  N/A.......................  A: Voice Vote. (Nov. 16, 1993).  
H. Res. 304, Nov. 9, 1993.....  C         H.J. Res. 288: Further CR, FY  N/A.............  N/A.......................  .................................
                                           1994.                                                                                                        
H. Res. 312, Nov. 17, 1993....  MC        H.R. 3425: EPA Cabinet Status  27 (D-8; R-19)..  9 (D-1; R-8)..............  F: 191-227. (Feb. 2, 1994).      
H. Res. 313, Nov. 17, 1993....  MC        H.R. 796: Freedom Access to    15 (D-9; R-6)...  4 (D-1; R-3)..............  A: 233-192. (Nov. 18, 1993).     
                                           Clinics.                                                                                                     
H. Res. 314, Nov. 17, 1993....  MC        H.R. 3351: Alt Methods Young   21 (D-7; R-14)..  6 (D-3; R-3)..............  A: 238-179. (Nov. 19, 1993).     
                                           Offenders.                                                                                                   
H. Res. 316, Nov. 19, 1993....  C         H.R. 51: D.C. statehood bill.  1 (D-1; R-0)....  N/A.......................  A: 252-172. (Nov. 20, 1993).     
H. Res. 319, Nov. 20, 1993....  MC        H.R. 3: Campaign Finance       35 (D-6; R-29)..  1 (D-0; R-1)..............  A: 220-207. (Nov. 21, 1993).     
                                           Reform.                                                                                                      
H. Res. 320, Nov. 20, 1993....  MC        H.R. 3400: Reinventing         34 (D-15; R-19).  3 (D-3; R-0)..............  A: 247-183. (Nov. 22, 1993).     
                                           Government.                                                                                                  
H. Res. 336, Feb. 2, 1994.....  MC        H.R. 3759: Emergency           14 (D-8; R-5; I-  5 (D-3; R-2)..............  PQ: 244-168. A: 342-65. (Feb. 3, 
                                           Supplemental Appropriations.   1).                                           1994).                          
H. Res. 352, Feb. 8, 1994.....  MC        H.R. 811: Independent Counsel  27 (D-8; R-19)..  10 (D-4; R-6).............  PQ: 249-174. A: 242-174. (Feb. 9,
                                           Act.                                                                         1994).                          
H. Res. 357, Feb. 9, 1994.....  MC        H.R. 3345: Federal Workforce   3 (D-2; R-1)....  2 (D-2; R-0)..............  A: VV (Feb. 10, 1994).           
                                           Restructuring.                                                                                               
H. Res. 366, Feb. 23, 1994....  MO        H.R. 6: Improving America's    NA..............  NA........................  A: VV (Feb. 24, 1994).           
                                           Schools.                                                                                                     
H. Res. 384, Mar. 9, 1994.....  MC        H. Con. Res. 218: Budget       14 (D-5; R-9)...  5 (D-3; R-2)..............  A: 245-171 (Mar. 10, 1994).      
                                           Resolution FY 1995-99.                                                                                       
H. Res. 401, Apr. 12, 1994....  MO        H.R. 4092: Violent Crime       180 (D-98; R-82)  68 (D-47; R-21)...........  A: 244-176 (Apr. 13, 1994).      
                                           Control.                                                                                                     
H. Res. 410, Apr. 21, 1994....  MO        H.R. 3221: Iraqi Claims Act..  N/A.............  N/A.......................  A: Voice Vote (Apr. 28, 1994).   
H. Res. 414, Apr. 28, 1994....  O         H.R. 3254: NSF Auth. Act.....  N/A.............  N/A.......................  A: Voice Vote (May 3, 1994).     
H. Res. 416, May 4, 1994......  C         H.R. 4296: Assault Weapons     7 (D-5; R-2)....  0 (D-0; R-0)..............  A: 220-209 (May 5, 1994).        
                                           Ban Act.                                                                                                     
H. Res. 420, May 5, 1994......  O         H.R. 2442: EDA                 N/A.............  N/A.......................  A: Voice Vote (May 10, 1994).    
                                           Reauthorization.                                                                                             
H. Res. 422, May 11, 1994.....  MO        H.R. 518: California Desert    N/A.............  N/A.......................  .................................
                                           Protection.                                                                                                  
H. Res. 423, May 11, 1994.....  O         H.R. 2473: Montana Wilderness  N/A.............  N/A.......................  A: Voice Vote (May 12, 1994)     
                                           Act.                                                                                                         
H. Res. 422, May 11, 1994.....  MO        H.R. 518: California Desert    N/A.............  N/A.......................  PQ: 245-172 A: 248-165 (May 17,  
                                           Protection.                                                                  1994)                           
H. Res. 428, May 17, 1994.....  MO        H.R. 2108: Black Lung          4 (D-1; R-3)....  N/A.......................  .................................
                                           Benefits Act.                                                                                                
H. Res. 429, May 17, 1994.....  MO        H.R. 4301: Defense Auth., FY   173 (D-115; R-    ..........................  .................................
                                           1995.                          58).                                                                          
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Note.--Code: C-Closed; MC-Modified closed; MO-Modified open; O-Open; D-Democrat; R-Republican; PQ: Previous question; A-Adopted; F-Failed.              

                                            Department of Defense,


                                    Office of General Counsel,

                                   Washington, DC, April 15, 1994.
     Hon. Ronald V. Dellums,
     Chairman, Committee on Armed Services, House of 
         Representatives, Washington, DC.
       Dear Mr. Chairman: This responds to your request for the 
     views of the Department of Defense on H.R. 1055, 103d 
     Congress, a bill ``To direct the Secretary of Defense to 
     issue a commendation to each individual exposed to mustard 
     agents during World War II, and for other purposes.''
       H.R. 1055 would require the Secretary of Defense to issue a 
     commendation to individuals exposed to mustard agents during 
     World War II, and to notify these individuals of their 
     exposure, the possible health effects of the exposure, and 
     the options available to them for medical treatment for 
     health effects resulting from the exposure. Further, if the 
     bill were enacted the Secretary of Defense would be required 
     to make available to the Secretary of Veterans Affairs any 
     information regarding exposure to include the names of the 
     individuals.
       We fully support H.R. 1055. We do caution, however, that 
     given the many years that have passed since some of these 
     activities were carried out, and the format and dispersion of 
     the records, it may not be possible for us fully to identify 
     and notify all participants. In spite of the above obstacles, 
     the Department of Defense is committed to doing everything 
     possible to support the bill's provisions. We continue to 
     pursue the review of records and we are determined to make as 
     complete and thorough a review as possible and to share our 
     findings with the Department of Veterans Affairs.
       The Office of Management and Budget advises that, from the 
     standpoint of the Administration's program, there is no 
     objection to the presentation of this report for the 
     consideration of the Committee.
           Sincerely,
                                               Stephen W. Preston,
                                           Acting General Counsel.
  Mr. Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.
  Mr. FROST. Mr. Speaker, for the purposes of debate only, I yield 4 
minutes to the gentleman from Ohio [Mr. Traficant].
  (Mr. TRAFICANT asked and was given permission to revise and extend 
his remarks.)
  Mr. TRAFICANT. Mr. Speaker, I have been voting for these defense 
bills, and I have listened to these arguments on both sides of the 
aisle. There is a lot of good in the defense bill, but each and every 
one of us has some problems with it, and I have some concerns myself.
  I believe that the American taxpayers pay for the defense of Japan 
and Germany and Europe to the tune of about $100 billion. That is, 
``b'', a hundred billion. Now, I know they say that protects American 
interests when we send all this money over there, but I want the 
Members to think about this.
  The taxpayers of American send a check over to Frankfurt to an 
American soldier who cashes his check at a bank in Frankfurt. Then he 
goes out and he buys clothing in Heidelberg, or he goes to dinner in 
Dusseldorf, or in fact they may take in a theater at some point in 
Rome, or some American soldier may cash his check and buy sushi in 
Tokyo. This amazes me. And yet we have millions of illegal aliens 
running across our border, and Congress is feverishly trying to find 
money to finance new Border Patrol agents. I just cannot believe how 
dumb the Congress of the United States can be.
  Now, I say to the gentleman from New York [Mr. Solomon] and the 
gentleman from Texas [Mr. Frost] that I have a little amendment to 
offer. It has been on the books for 3 years, and I have been jacked 
around.

                              {time}  1310

  Here is what is says: The Traficant amendment says the Secretary of 
Defense can take some of these soldiers, who are falling out of chairs 
without armrests in Europe, and relocate them on our borders so we do 
not have to come up with more money and bankrupt American families and 
taxpayers. And they can work with immigration, they can work with the 
Border Patrol, they will not violate posse comitatus laws, and they 
will help to keep out illegal aliens, heroin, brown Mexican heroin, 
crack, guns, and people that end on welfare programs. And that is not a 
statement being made against Mexico and southern America. I know the 
problems we have. I want my amendment in the damn bill.
  Mr. HUNTER. Will the gentleman yield?
  Mr. TRAFICANT. I will yield to my good friend from California.
  Mr. HUNTER. I thank my friend from Ohio for his amendment. I think it 
is an excellent amendment, and I think the Republican side of the aisle 
will do everything it can to see that the gentleman's amendment is made 
in order. The gentleman is right on point with respect to the massive 
smuggling that is taking place on the border.
  We are knocking out 1,700 young people a week out of the military, 
taking them out of uniform. We are, in fact, supporting a great deal of 
the rest of the free world with American taxpayer dollars. We could 
make some common sense decisions, and I think the gentleman's amendment 
is excellent.
  Mr. TRAFICANT. Mr. Speaker reclaiming my time, I appreciate the 
support of the gentleman from California [Mr. Hunter]. I have voted to 
support the gentleman on every one of his border initiatives. The 
gentleman has been a leader in the Congress.
  Mr. Speaker, the Traficant amendment does not say ``shall,'' because 
I do not want to frighten away the Democrats. I would say to the 
gentleman from Texas [Mr. Frost], this is important: The Traficant 
amendment says the Secretary of Defense may relocate and restation 
these troops.
  Now, let me say this to you: I say we are sending our money overseas, 
they are cashing our check over there, going to theaters in Rome, and 
we have some big problems in our country. Why do not we take it easy on 
the taxpayers? Allow us to bring some of our troops already trained, 
put them on the border. Maybe after they are done with their service, 
we might be able to keep them in the Border Patrol and they will 
understand the significance of those particular problems.
  So I would like my amendment included in the second round, or else I 
declare war here today in this defense bill. And the gentleman from 
Illinois [Mr. Costello] and the gentleman from Illinois [Mr. Lipinski] 
are saying yes, sir, they are all going to support me, and the 
gentleman from California [Mr. Hunter] and the gentleman from New York 
[Mr. Solomon] and we are going to overrun the Democrats and the 
gentleman from Pennsylvania [Mr. Walker]. So I would say to the 
gentleman from Florida [Mr. Goss] you have to make it happen. I would 
appreciate it, Mr. Chairman, if you would put my amendment in this 
bill.
  Mr. SOLOMON. Mr. Speaker, let me just assure the previous speaker 
that we always support his amendments. We believe in open rules and 
open debate on this floor.
  Mr. Speaker, I yield 3\1/2\ minutes to a very distinguished Member of 
the Committee on Rules, the gentleman from Florida [Mr. Goss].
  (Mr. GOSS asked and was given permission to revise and extend his 
remarks.)
  Mr. GOSS. Mr. Speaker, today we begin the arduous but crucial task of 
establishing our Nation's defense priorities for the coming fiscal 
year. Today's rule is the first cut, attempting to address some of the 
major issues while leaving room for further discussion down the road. I 
take heart in the notice at the top of today's list of amendments, 
which reads ``any amendment not printed on this list is still available 
and may be included in the next rule'' because there are massive gaps. 
One area of tremendous concern is the President's latest policy shift 
on Haiti--another zag in the ongoing zig-zag of administration attempts 
to resolve the Haitian crisis. The President has announced we will 
begin processing Haitian refugee claims on the high seas, or perhaps in 
third countries, but the Coast Guard has no instructions on 
implementing this policy shift. Many of my colleagues believe this new 
policy is a bad idea and, coupled with the impending tightened the U.N. 
embargo, will lead to mass exodus from Haiti. There is real disbelief 
about renting cruise ships as processing centers, especially when 
cheaper and safer solutions exist. Meanwhile, this policy does nothing 
to address the long-term problem of stability in Haiti. The 
administration is sliding ever further down the slippery slope toward 
military intervention, without a clear mission and with no clue about 
how to extract ourselves once we are there. This would be a tragic 
mistake. Several Members, including myself, have offered amendments to 
the DOD bill regarding Haiti, presenting alternative solutions to the 
current crisis. My suggestion deals with using a large Haitian island 
as a safe haven. Mr. Shaw of Florida has raised the possibility of 
training Haitians to take back their country. And Mr. Kyl has sought to 
put the Congress on record as opposing a United States invasion of 
Haiti. In addition, I have an amendment to ensure that DOD resources 
are not used to pursue the unworkable and dangerous policy of refugee 
processing on the high seas. These are important subjects that Members 
have a right to consider. I hope the majority will make them in order 
in the second rule. Lastly, Mr. Speaker, I draw Members' attention to 
one small provision in this massive bill; sense of Congress language in 
title X pertaining to a DOD commendation for all the victims of World 
War II mustard gas tests. This language comes from my bill, H.R. 1055, 
which has more than 70 bipartisan cosponsors and has DOD support. I am 
grateful to my friends Mr. Skelton and Mr. Kyl for their help in 
securing this provision. We have been assured that such matters are 
normally handled by Sense of Congress language, and I submit for my 
colleagues review a letter underscoring the Department of Defense's 
support for this effort and commitment to providing long-overdue 
recognition and gratitude to victims of those secret Government tests. 
How appropriate that we get this done before the 50th anniversary of 
the invasion of Normandy.

  Mr. SOLOMON. Mr. Speaker, I yield 6 minutes to the very distinguished 
gentleman from California [Mr. Cunningham], a member of the Committee 
on Armed Services.
  Mr. CUNNINGHAM. Mr. Speaker, the Speaker is one of those strong 
supporters of defense, and I would like to recognize that.
  I would like to go through several different ways in which this 
administration is attempting to kill defense. First of all, there was a 
$50 billion cut under the 102d Congress, and candidate Clinton said $60 
billion would put us into bone marrow. Immediately in his budget he put 
$127 billion additional cuts in defense, which brought it to $177 
billion.
  Why? Because then he could reduce the deficit. He could show the 
American people how he is reducing the deficit. But he is doing it on 
the backs of the men and women who serve this country.
  The military through 1994 is operating by the skin of its teeth. It 
has very little funding for training and operations, and with us still 
in Iraq and Bosnia and trying to get into Haiti, and even in Somalia, 
it affects us. It affects our readiness back here at home as well.
  The funding for all services through 1995 and out, 1994 is taken care 
of, but 1995 and out is dependent on closing the ordinary bases ordered 
under BRAC'93. But the administration is not funding BRAC'93, and there 
is no savings, so there is no funding of the military 1995 on out.
  What is happening in my own district, the commanding officer of NTC 
just took $30,000 out of training and operations to buy plywood to 
board up the buildings he is trying to close, but he cannot do it. That 
is affecting our readiness, Mr. Speaker.
  The President needs to fund BRAC'93. It is killing the military. They 
are eating themselves from within.
  I testified before the BRAC that the environmental cleanup cost of 
those bases would far exceed their estimates. That has come to 
fruition. In many cases, Mr. Speaker, there is no savings from those 
bases. So again, in the out years.
  A fourth way that the administration is attempting to kill defense, 
they have ordered early demise of F-14's, F-15's, F-16's, and even 
ordered the cancellation and demise of the A-6, our only all-weather 
fighting plane. In the meantime, they keep extending the research and 
development of a joint airplane beyond the year 2000. Our inventory is 
going downhill, and there is no replacement. The F-18-EF has bee 
delayed, and it is killing us and killing our support.

                              {time}  1320

  BRAC'93 and the military expansion funds and training and maintenance 
and operation is killing us. The liberal House has ordered that we 
spend $4 billion in social programs out of the defense budget, $4 
billion, when the gentlewoman from Colorado said we need to kill and 
cut defense even more above the $177 billion, and she herself stuck in 
millions of dollars of pork barrel projects in her own district on 
social spending out of the defense budget. That is a crime.
  They are trying to kill the inventory. The administration is risking 
national security in the United States by costing the lives of our men 
and women. I look at the defense cuts with a faulty foreign policy. I 
look at 22 rangers in Somalia and 77 wounded that did not have to die. 
No, it is not Les Aspin's fault. It is the President of the United 
States.
  I make that statement because I disagreed with our capabilities in 
Lebanon. I disagreed with those liberals that turned their backs on us 
in Vietnam while we fought that battle and got us killed, and they are 
doing the same thing today. It is like deja vu. On one side of a combat 
weapon and looking back and say, ``Don't they know what they are doing 
to us in Congress?''
  And today, being part of that and seeing in many cases the same 
liberals that are trying to get us killed, not only today but in the 
future. Do they not realize what the demise of the defense industry in 
the research and development? Research and development has kept us on 
the technical edge. The F-14, for example, is the greatest airplane 
ever built, and we had that technical edge.
  But that research and development will be diminished, and we will not 
have that edge. We are drawing down our troops. We are cutting 
training.
  I coined a phrase, ``You fight like you train.'' That training is 
going away. They want to kill defense. They are killing our men and 
women and, damn it, I am quite tired of it.
  Mr. President, fund BRAC'93, quit taking social spending out of the 
defense bill and quit the hyprocritic statements that we have too much 
defense.
  The SPEAKER pro tempore (Mr. Montgomery). The Chair would advise the 
gentleman that he is to address the Chair, and not the President, 
directly.
  Mr. SOLOMON. Mr. Speaker, I yield 3 minutes to the very distinguished 
gentleman from Pennsylvania [Mr. Walker].
  Mr. WALKER. Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentleman for yielding time to 
me.
  Mr. Speaker, I have become increasingly concerned in recent weeks 
that the House is not going to proceed with the basic reform 
legislation some of us who worked on a committee for almost a year 
developing those reforms had expected. It becomes clear from what the 
Speaker is saying on a daily basis that at the most we are going to get 
reforms out here of a very minor nature.
  One of the things that we in the minority felt strongly about was the 
fact that we need to end the proxy voting in the House of 
Representatives. Proxy voting is when Members do not show up at 
committee but their votes are cast for them anyway.
  What I am wondering is, as I hear the debate on this very complicated 
issue that literally involves the lives of men and women in our 
service, whether or not we had a situation in this committee where some 
of these fundamental issues as they were decided in committee were 
decided by proxy vote, whether or not that was even important enough to 
be raised at the Committee on Rules.
  I have been up at the Committee on Rules on a number of cases and 
testified and at no time were questions asked about whether or not the 
bill was reported using a lot of proxy votes, whether or not proxy 
votes were used in the deliberations and in the amendments that came to 
the floor.
  I have to tell my colleagues, if we are not going to have reform in 
the House of Representatives, if in fact, once again, the Democratic 
leadership is going to try to fool the American people and have them 
believe that somehow reform has been done when, in fact, nothing has 
been done, that we are going to have to, it seems to me, begin to raise 
those issues.
  My guess is it was not raised in this particular matter, but it ought 
to be raised in the future.
  Each time committees come before the Committee on Rules, it seems to 
me that one of the questions that needs to be asked is whether or not 
proxy votes were used to bring forward the legislation in any way, 
shape or form. The American people deserve to know whether or not we 
have ghost voting in the committees. The American people sent 
Representatives here not to have someone else cast their vote for them 
but to have that vote cast by the person who was elected.
  Time and time again what we are finding is that the Democrats in this 
institution are allowing their power structures to spread so that no 
one can show up at committees and then justifying proxy voting on the 
basis of, ``Well, Members are too busy to be there and cast their 
votes.''
  It is time we reform the body and it is time one of the issues that 
we raise is whether or not Members are showing up for work in their 
committees. Showing up for work means casting your vote. It is not 
being done and, as we sit here and listen to the complicated issues 
that this committee took up, I sure hope that there were not votes cast 
by proxy. I am sure that there were not questions asked about that in 
this round. But in the future, I sure hope those questions will be 
asked, because it is high time that the Committee on Rules and the 
House as an institution asked the questions of whether or not Members 
are casting their votes for real in committee or whether this is being 
done for them by committee chairmen and others who may be casting ghost 
votes.
  It is wrong. It ought to be stopped, and just the nature of the 
issues that we are hearing about today, what the gentleman from 
California just said about the decisions that we are making in the 
Congress that involve very life and death issues, those ought not be 
done by proxy votes.
  Mr. SOLOMON. Mr. Speaker, I yield 3 minutes to the gentleman from 
California [Mr. Hunter], a very distinguished member of the Committee 
on Armed Services.
  Mr. HUNTER. Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentleman for yielding time to 
me and for the great leadership he has shown in this rules debate.
  My colleagues, we are reliving a very tragic history. It is a history 
that follows American victories in major conflicts.
  After World War II, when we were disassembling our military, General 
Marshall was asked how was the demobilization going. He said, ``This 
isn't a demobilization. This is a rout.''
  He was right, and America discovered that he was right when in Korea 
a few years after having the most massive, effective military in the 
history of the world, we found that we could not hold our ground in 
Korea because we had done away with the personnel and with the 
equipment that was necessary to subject American power effectively.
  We won World War II and we demobilized too quickly. We demobilized 
too quickly after Korea, and I would submit that we have demobilized 
too quickly after this perceived victory in the cold war.
  We are cutting 1,700 young people free per week from the military, 
cashiering 1,700 people out of the military. We have cut back our 
fighter strength already to about 50 percent of what it was a few years 
ago. We are replacing fighter aircraft and combat aircraft at the rate 
of only 1 to 100 in inventory on an annual basis.
  That means we are obsolescing our fighters at five times the rate 
that took place during the 1980's. And against this backdrop of 
military slashing, of destroying the military that President Clinton 
has embarked upon, we have a remaining dangerous world with North Korea 
acquiring nuclear weapons, continued instability in the Soviet Union, 
continued problems and potential conflicts in the Middle East, the 
Balkans are exploding. There is massive death in Africa, and Communist 
China is attempting to assert itself into the position of superpower 
status formerly enjoyed by the Soviet Union.
  I have President Clinton's statement in front of me in which he says, 
with respect to this bill, the White House says, ``The bill is most 
objectionable in the deep and arbitrary reductions it would impose on 
readiness.''
  Let me just say, the deep and arbitrary cuts and reductions that have 
been imposed on military readiness have been imposed by President 
Clinton, because he has cut defense $127 billion initially below the 
line that was established by President Bush.
  He has massacred national defense.
  And what he does when he does that is not just deal a body blow to a 
bunch of people in the Pentagon or in administrative positions around 
the United States at military bases. What he does is undermine the 
credibility of the 30,000-plus American soldiers who occupy the Korean 
Peninsula whose real defense is the credibility of America's military 
power.
  What he does is cut back on the credibility of Americans who are 
trying to see to it that nuclear weapons do not proliferate and that 
this country remains strong.
  Now, let me just say that there is a strong disagreement. While we in 
the Committee on Armed Services voted this bill out so we could get on 
the floor, there is not a bipartisan agreement on this defense bill 
with respect to the amount of dollars we spend on defense, because we 
are devastating national security with this bill. And Republicans do 
not agree with it.
  I think Members are going to see in the end of this debate a strong 
position by the Republicans in this House. I think by Democrats, 
conservative Democrats, pro-defense Democrats who have been talking to 
enlisted people, who have been talking to people at the bases, who have 
been talking to people in the field, they know defense is being cut too 
much. They are going to join to oppose this bill.

                              {time}  1330

  Mr. SOLOMON. Mr. Speaker, I yield 3 minutes to the very distinguished 
gentleman from Pennsylvania [Mr. Weldon], a member of the Committee on 
Armed Services.
  (Mr. WELDON asked and was given permission to revise and extend his 
remarks, and include extraneous material.)
  Mr. WELDON. Mr. Speaker, I rise in support of this rule. During the 
regular debate I will be acknowledging the leadership of our committee 
chairman and our ranking Republican who I think have done an admirable 
job, certainly have been fair and have worked with us in a truly 
bipartisan spirit. But I have four major problems with where we are in 
terms of defense spending, Mr. Speaker.
  First of all, the perception is that we have not cut defense 
spending. Members are going to hear that over and over again by our 
colleagues particularly on the other side. Nothing could be further 
from the truth. If we look at what we were spending on defense in the 
1960's after the Korean war but before the Vietnam war, we were 
spending 9 percent of our GNP on defense. We were spending 55 cents of 
every dollar on the military. In this year's budget we will be spending 
3 percent of our GNP on defense and roughly 17 cents of every dollar on 
the military. Any Member who gets up here and says we have not cut 
defense is just lying to the American people.
  My second problem is this President stood up at this podium, our 
President, and made the promise to the American people, as he pounded 
the table, ``I will not cut defense further.''

  I will include his quote where he said, ``The budget I send to 
Congress draws the line against further defense cuts. It protects the 
readiness and quality of our forces * * * We must not cut defense 
further.''
  I include that entire quote, as follows:

       Last year I proposed a defense plan that maintains our 
     post-Cold War security at a lower cost. This year many people 
     urged me to cut our defense spending further to pay for other 
     government programs. I said no. The budget I send to Congress 
     draws the line against further defense cuts. It protects the 
     readiness and quality of our forces.
       Ultimately, the best strategy is to do that. We must not 
     cut defense further. I hope the Congress without regard to 
     party.

  Mr. Speaker, what do the numbers show? In each of the next 4 years we 
cut defense spending not at the rate of inflation, but we cut defense 
spending in real terms. The administration has just not been truthful 
with the American people, and I have a real problem with that.
  The third major problem I have with where we are in defense is this 
bill is not based upon the threat. Mr. Speaker, as you know, the 
Members of the Committee on Armed Services are given the responsibility 
by our colleagues to look at this threat that is out there, where the 
problem areas are, where the hot spots are and how we can respond, and 
then we are supposed to come up with what we think would be necessary 
to defend America and our allies. That is not what happened this year. 
This year we were given a number, as Sam Nunn said, pulled out of the 
air. That number was given to us as our budget number for this fiscal 
year. This budget and this defense bill is not based on the real threat 
that is out there, and we will be discussing that during the regular 
debate on the full bill.
  My fourth concern with where we are in terms of defense is the 
defense bill, because of its size, is becoming the cash cow for the 
country. Members who cannot justify programs and priorities that have 
nothing to do with the military are inserting them in defense spending 
through the appropriations process, through the authorization process. 
Senator McCain estimated that there were $4 billion last year of items 
tacked on to defense spending that had nothing to do with the military, 
things that were stuck in by Members who could not get their priorities 
addressed through legitimate channels.
  That has got to end, and when our colleagues on the other side say 
cut defense spending, they ought to start by cutting out those items 
that have nothing to do with national security.
  Mr. Speaker, this is in fact a major piece of legislation, and while 
I support the overall attempt at what we are doing with limited funds, 
I have major problems, and I ask our colleagues to look seriously at 
these issues as we debate the national defense bill for next year.
  Mr. SOLOMON. Mr. Speaker, I yield 1 minute to the gentleman from 
California [Mr. Cunningham].
  Mr. CUNNINGHAM. Mr. Speaker, I would like to clarify from our side of 
the aisle that when speakers say the Members on the other side of the 
aisle, there are a lot of Members, including yourself, Mr. Speaker, who 
help us on defense issues and realize what the needs are of this 
country.
  But I would like my liberal colleagues, some on the other side, as 
well as the conservatives and moderates across the board, to get a 
security briefing from our submariners. While in all of Russia today 
the lights are going out and they have economic troubles, they are 
dropping four, to five to six Typhoon class submarines, nuclear 
submarines a year. They have three submarines, and I cannot quote the 
depth because it is classified, that go thousands and thousands of 
feet. They use molded titanium. Those submarines cost $5 billion to $10 
billion, and they are spending $50 billion in nuclear submarines while 
we are giving them billions of dollars in Russia. I would ask if we 
really want to save money, let us take a look at where those kinds of 
dollars are going, and we can save a lot of money. And that does affect 
our national security.
  Mr. SOLOMON. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume.
  Mr. Speaker, as I said at the outset of this debate, I urge support 
for this rule. It is a rule that has been negotiated on a bipartisan 
basis between the majority and minority. We were treated fairly on this 
rule. We have a lot of reservations about the second rule, but we will 
get to that in due time.
  Mr. Speaker, I yield the balance of my time to the distinguished 
gentleman from Georgia [Mr. Gingrich], our Republican whip.
  The SPEAKER pro tempore (Mr. Montgomery). The gentleman from Georgia 
[Mr. Gingrich] is recognized for 3 minutes.
  Mr. GINGRICH. Mr. Speaker, I think I can say what needs to be said in 
about 3 minutes. I think there are only three points that we need to 
make.
  The first point is for those watching who care about America's young 
men and young women in uniform, those who are worried about America's 
strength around the world, this bill, when it comes to the floor, is a 
very dangerous bill. It is dramatically under President Clinton's 
request. President Clinton's request was dramatically under President 
Bush's request.
  My fear is that some day in the next couple of years we are going to 
see young men and women in American uniforms killed because they are 
not going to have the right equipment, they are not going to have the 
right training, they are not going to have the airlift capability. And 
while I think the committee has tried very hard, and I want to say that 
I think my good friend, Chairman Dellums, has been very fair, and I 
think there has been a very serious effort to try to do the best they 
can, the fact is when we cut defense as deeply as we are cutting it 
over the next 5 years, we are weakening America, and this bill is a 
major step. This year they do everything they can to keep it up as far 
as they can, but if we look at the outyears, the year after and the 
year after, by 1999 we have a radical cut in our defense capabilities. 
That is my first point, that this bill moves us down the road to 
weakening America which is going to endanger the lives of American men 
and women around the planet.
  My second point would be that once again our friends in the 
Democratic Party, who have run this House for 40 years, are trying to 
produce a rule that does not make in order very major amendments. And I 
want to talk about those amendments as my third point.
  But I want every American to understand, and I want my colleagues to 
understand that there is something profoundly wrong when the Democrats, 
who have been in charge for 40 years, find the only way they can get a 
bill through is to rig the rules, to bring to the floor a rule which 
blocks important, legitimate amendments. The American people deserve to 
see our vote on key issues, and that gets me to my third point.
  Mr. SOLOMON. Mr. Speaker, will the gentleman from Texas [Mr. Frost] 
please yield time to the gentleman in the well, because we were 
constrained, and the gentleman has not used up his time yet. Could he 
yield the gentleman a couple of minutes?
  Mr. FROST. No, Mr. Speaker. The gentleman has had his full time on 
his side. He had his full 30 minutes.
  Mr. GINGRICH. Mr. Speaker, I would not expect the machine to yield us 
any extra time. I understand the machine is not going to yield any 
extra time. It wants a closed rule, and a closed debate, and it wants 
to hide and keep power.
  Mr. Speaker, let me say on the issue of Haiti we are about to make 
some major decisions in this country that are going to risk the lives 
of American young men and women that this House has an obligation to 
debate, and this bill is a legitimate place to debate that. This is 
about the use of Americans in uniform, about the use of the American 
Navy, and we deserve, and the American people deserve, to have those 
amendments made in order.
  Mr. Speaker, I am going to oppose this rule, and I am going to oppose 
the next rule if the Democratic machine, after 40 years, insists on 
gagging the House so the American people do not get a fair debate and a 
recorded vote on an immediate issue that involves real foreign policy 
questions that involves the potential threat to the lives of America's 
men and women in uniform.
  Mr. FROST. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume.
  Mr. Speaker, I would only point out to the minority whip who has just 
been speaking that there is ample general debate time provided under 
this rule, and the minority whip or anyone else on his side will have 
ample time during general debate to express their concern about the 
issues that the gentleman has raised.
  Mr. Speaker, I have no further requests for time, I yield back the 
balance of my time, and I move the previous question on the resolution.
  The previous question was ordered.
  The SPEAKER pro tempore (Mr. Montgomery). The question is on the 
resolution.
  The question was taken; and the Speaker pro tempore announced that 
the ayes appeared to have it.
  Mr. SOLOMON. 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.
  The vote was taken by electronic device, and there were--yeas 369, 
nays 49, not voting 15, as follows:

                             [Roll No. 178]

                               YEAS--369

     Abercrombie
     Andrews (ME)
     Andrews (NJ)
     Andrews (TX)
     Applegate
     Bacchus (FL)
     Bachus (AL)
     Baesler
     Baker (LA)
     Barca
     Barcia
     Barlow
     Barrett (NE)
     Barrett (WI)
     Bartlett
     Bateman
     Becerra
     Beilenson
     Bentley
     Bereuter
     Berman
     Bevill
     Bilbray
     Bilirakis
     Bishop
     Blackwell
     Bliley
     Blute
     Boehlert
     Boehner
     Bonilla
     Bonior
     Borski
     Brewster
     Brooks
     Browder
     Brown (CA)
     Brown (FL)
     Brown (OH)
     Bryant
     Byrne
     Callahan
     Calvert
     Camp
     Canady
     Cantwell
     Cardin
     Carr
     Castle
     Chapman
     Clay
     Clayton
     Clement
     Clinger
     Clyburn
     Coleman
     Collins (GA)
     Collins (IL)
     Collins (MI)
     Condit
     Conyers
     Cooper
     Coppersmith
     Costello
     Cox
     Coyne
     Cramer
     Danner
     Darden
     de la Garza
     Deal
     DeFazio
     DeLauro
     Dellums
     Derrick
     Deutsch
     Diaz-Balart
     Dickey
     Dingell
     Dixon
     Dooley
     Doolittle
     Dreier
     Dunn
     Durbin
     Edwards (CA)
     Edwards (TX)
     Engel
     English
     Eshoo
     Evans
     Everett
     Farr
     Fazio
     Fields (LA)
     Filner
     Fingerhut
     Fish
     Flake
     Foglietta
     Ford (MI)
     Ford (TN)
     Fowler
     Frank (MA)
     Franks (CT)
     Frost
     Furse
     Gejdenson
     Gephardt
     Geren
     Gibbons
     Gilchrest
     Gillmor
     Gilman
     Gingrich
     Glickman
     Gonzalez
     Goodlatte
     Goodling
     Gordon
     Goss
     Green
     Greenwood
     Gunderson
     Gutierrez
     Hall (TX)
     Hamburg
     Hamilton
     Hansen
     Harman
     Hastert
     Hastings
     Hayes
     Hefley
     Hefner
     Herger
     Hilliard
     Hinchey
     Hoagland
     Hobson
     Hoke
     Holden
     Horn
     Houghton
     Hoyer
     Hughes
     Hutchinson
     Hutto
     Hyde
     Inglis
     Inhofe
     Inslee
     Istook
     Jacobs
     Jefferson
     Johnson (CT)
     Johnson (GA)
     Johnson (SD)
     Johnson, E. B.
     Johnson, Sam
     Johnston
     Kanjorski
     Kaptur
     Kennedy
     Kennelly
     Kildee
     King
     Kingston
     Kleczka
     Klein
     Klink
     Knollenberg
     Kolbe
     Kopetski
     Kreidler
     Kyl
     LaFalce
     Lambert
     Lancaster
     Lantos
     LaRocco
     Laughlin
     Lazio
     Leach
     Lehman
     Levin
     Levy
     Lewis (FL)
     Lewis (GA)
     Lightfoot
     Linder
     Lipinski
     Livingston
     Lloyd
     Long
     Lowey
     Lucas
     Machtley
     Maloney
     Mann
     Manton
     Manzullo
     Margolies-Mezvinsky
     Markey
     Martinez
     Matsui
     Mazzoli
     McCloskey
     McCollum
     McCurdy
     McDade
     McHale
     McInnis
     McKinney
     McMillan
     McNulty
     Meehan
     Meek
     Menendez
     Meyers
     Mfume
     Mica
     Michel
     Miller (CA)
     Mineta
     Minge
     Mink
     Moakley
     Molinari
     Mollohan
     Montgomery
     Moorhead
     Moran
     Morella
     Murphy
     Murtha
     Myers
     Nadler
     Neal (MA)
     Nussle
     Oberstar
     Obey
     Olver
     Ortiz
     Orton
     Owens
     Oxley
     Pallone
     Parker
     Pastor
     Paxon
     Payne (NJ)
     Payne (VA)
     Pelosi
     Penny
     Peterson (FL)
     Peterson (MN)
     Pickett
     Pickle
     Pomeroy
     Porter
     Portman
     Poshard
     Price (NC)
     Pryce (OH)
     Quillen
     Quinn
     Rahall
     Ravenel
     Reed
     Regula
     Reynolds
     Richardson
     Ridge
     Roemer
     Rogers
     Rohrabacher
     Ros-Lehtinen
     Rose
     Rostenkowski
     Roukema
     Rowland
     Roybal-Allard
     Rush
     Sabo
     Sanders
     Sangmeister
     Santorum
     Sarpalius
     Sawyer
     Saxton
     Schaefer
     Schenk
     Schiff
     Schroeder
     Schumer
     Scott
     Serrano
     Sharp
     Shaw
     Shays
     Shepherd
     Shuster
     Sisisky
     Skaggs
     Skeen
     Skelton
     Slattery
     Slaughter
     Smith (IA)
     Smith (MI)
     Smith (NJ)
     Smith (OR)
     Smith (TX)
     Snowe
     Solomon
     Spence
     Spratt
     Stark
     Stenholm
     Stokes
     Strickland
     Studds
     Stupak
     Sundquist
     Swett
     Swift
     Synar
     Talent
     Tanner
     Tauzin
     Taylor (MS)
     Taylor (NC)
     Tejeda
     Thomas (WY)
     Thompson
     Thornton
     Thurman
     Torkildsen
     Torres
     Torricelli
     Traficant
     Tucker
     Unsoeld
     Upton
     Valentine
     Velazquez
     Vento
     Visclosky
     Volkmer
     Vucanovich
     Walker
     Walsh
     Waters
     Watt
     Waxman
     Weldon
     Wheat
     Williams
     Wilson
     Wise
     Wolf
     Woolsey
     Wyden
     Wynn
     Yates
     Young (AK)
     Young (FL)
     Zeliff

                                NAYS--49

     Allard
     Archer
     Armey
     Baker (CA)
     Ballenger
     Barton
     Bunning
     Burton
     Buyer
     Coble
     Combest
     Crapo
     Cunningham
     DeLay
     Dornan
     Duncan
     Ehlers
     Fawell
     Fields (TX)
     Franks (NJ)
     Gallegly
     Gallo
     Gekas
     Grams
     Hancock
     Hoekstra
     Huffington
     Hunter
     Kasich
     Kim
     Klug
     Lewis (CA)
     McCandless
     McCrery
     McHugh
     McKeon
     Miller (FL)
     Packard
     Petri
     Pombo
     Ramstad
     Roberts
     Roth
     Royce
     Sensenbrenner
     Stearns
     Stump
     Thomas (CA)
     Zimmer

                             NOT VOTING--15

     Ackerman
     Boucher
     Crane
     Dicks
     Emerson
     Ewing
     Grandy
     Hall (OH)
     Hochbrueckner
     McDermott
     Neal (NC)
     Rangel
     Towns
     Washington
     Whitten

                              {time}  1401

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

                          ____________________