[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.
____________________