[Congressional Record Volume 141, Number 28 (Monday, February 13, 1995)]
[House]
[Pages H1672-H1677]
From the Congressional Record Online through the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]




PERMISSION FOR ALL COMMITTEES AND SUBCOMMITTEES TO SIT ON TOMORROW AND 
            THE BALANCE OF THE WEEK DURING THE 5-MINUTE RULE

  Mr. ARMEY. Mr. Speaker, I offer a motion.
  The SPEAKER pro tempore. The Clerk will report the motion.
  The Clerk read as follows:

       Mr. Armey moves: that all Committees of the House and their 
     subcommittees have permission to sit tomorrow, February 14, 
     and for the balance of the week while the House is meeting 
     under the five-minute rule.

  The SPEAKER pro tempore. The gentleman from Texas [Mr. Armey] is 
recognized for 1 hour.
  Mr. ARMEY. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself 5 minutes.
  I do not intend to take the full hour allotted to me.
  Mr. Speaker, before I yield to my friend, the gentleman from Michigan 
[Mr. Bonior], I would say that the hour is late, and I hope we will be 
able to adjourn shortly.
  In the meantime, all Members should be advised that we are very 
likely to have one more vote before this evening is over.
  Mr. Speaker, I yield 30 minutes to the gentleman from Michigan [Mr. 
Bonior], and I reserve the balance of my time.
  Mr. BONIOR. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume.
  Mr. Speaker, the Committee on Rules today approved an outrageous gag 
rule for the National Security Act. It cuts off debate. It blocks 
important amendments.
  Mr. ARMEY. Mr. Speaker, will the gentleman yield?
  Mr. BONIOR. I yield to the gentleman from Texas.
  Mr. ARMEY. Mr. Speaker, to be clear for the Record, I yielded this 
time to the gentleman from Michigan for purposes of debate only.
  Mr. SABO. Mr. Speaker, I reserve the right to object.
  The SPEAKER pro tempore. The gentleman from Texas [Mr. Armey] has 
yielded for purposes of debate only. There is nothing to object to at 
this point.
  Mr. SABO. Mr. Speaker, I think the gentleman yielded 30 minutes 
without reservations.
  The SPEAKER pro tempore. The gentleman from Texas [Mr. Armey] 
clarified his yielding, and this is for purposes of debate only.
  The Chair recognizes the gentleman from Michigan [Mr. Bonior].

                             {time}   2120

  Mr. BONIOR. Mr. Speaker, this rule that was put out this afternoon by 
the Republican leadership on the Committee on Rules is a gag rule for 
our National Security Act. It cuts off debate, it blocks important 
amendments, and it does so under a 10-hour time limit.
  Mr. Speaker, this legislation is too important. It is one of the most 
important pieces of legislation we will consider in this session of 
Congress or in this Congress.
  The Republicans want to completely rewrite the foreign policy of the 
United States in 10 hours. They want to reconstruct the entire defense 
policy and return to the days of star wars in 10 hours. They want to 
restrict the military's ability to respond to emergencies around the 
world in 10 hours. They want to completely rethink our relationship 
with our NATO allies in 10 hours.
  Mr. Speaker, this does not make any sense. We have tried throughout 
the day to negotiate without colleagues on this side of the aisle to 
give us adequate debate so we can take on these important issues which 
affect the national security of our country in a reasonable amount of 
time where Members of this floor can get up and express themselves with 
amendments that make sense for this country. And we find ourselves in a 
situation tonight where we have to object.
  Mr. Speaker, this is one of the most important pieces of foreign 
policy legislation to be considered by Congress in years.
  Mr. Speaker, if you talk to the distinguished ranking Members on our 
side of the aisle, the gentleman from Indiana [Mr. Hamilton], the 
gentleman from California [Mr. Dellums], and others who have labored in 
these areas for years and decades, they will tell you it is an outrage 
we are going to consider this piece of legislation for only 10 hours.
  Why do my Republican colleagues feel that they need to rush this bill 
through without adequate debate, without an opportunity for Members to 
offer amendments? I will tell you why. Because they want to punch 
another little hole in their Contract With America. They want to check 
off another item on the list.
  Well, Mr. Speaker, you do not write good laws by punching little 
cards, and you do not write good laws by rushing to judgment on issues 
that concern the national security of this country.
  That is not the way to protect this Nation. We ask for a reasonable 
amount of time, and we have been told 10 hours is all you are going to 
get, for foreign policy, for defense policy, for policy that deals with 
our most important allies in the North Atlantic Treaty Organization.
  It just will not do. You could spend 10 hours on the debate alone 
between troop readiness and star wars, which is a piece of the debate 
we are about to have in this bill as we approach it in the next couple 
of days.
  So, Mr. Speaker, I want to say as strongly as I can on behalf of 
myself and the rest of the Democratic leadership, we feel this is an 
injustice and we will not stand for it, and we want to make our voices 
heard this evening on this issue.
  Mr. Speaker, I yield such time as he may consume to my dear 
colleague, the gentleman from Massachusetts [Mr. Frank].
  Mr. FRANK of Massachusetts. Mr. Speaker, this urge to measure 
legislation by sheer volume of bills passed has really now come up 
against reality. This 10-hour limitation was perfectly sensible for 
some of the bills we have been doing this week. They were single issue 
bills. We did 10 hours on prisons, 10 hours on the prevention police. 
We bump up against it a little bit, but they are reasonable.
  This 10-hour model now is applying to an omnibus bill that takes in 
vast areas of national security, of foreign policy, and of defense. 
Remember out of the 10 hours comes rollcalls. If you have four or five 
rollcalls, you have eaten up a couple of hours by the amount of time 
they will take. We will debate what our relationship should be with 
NATO, what new nations will come into NATO, do we go back to star wars, 
what is our relationship to peacekeeping, what are our requirements 
when the United States participates in multinational peacekeeping, all 
in 10 hours.
  By the way, the hard working majority plans to leave town at 3 
o'clock on Thursday. This is 10 hours compressing the most important 
issues this Nation faces, so we can get out of town early.
  Well, let us wait until next week, if the vacation is irresistible. 
Frankly, for those who are prepared simply to take marching and voting 
orders, 10 
[[Page H1673]] hours may be OK. If you have checked your independent 
thought processes at the door and are ready to walk in here and be told 
what to do, I suppose 10 minutes would probably do it, if you can check 
them off like that.
  But those of us who think this country is entitled to serious 
discussion of these issues understand, 10 hours is the most debasing 
and degrading approach to the legislative process I have ever seen, 
particularly when it is for the convenience of an early vacation.
  One of the issues that I was hoping we would raise, and I have talked 
to Members on the other side, is burden sharing, which this House 
forced on the administration. It is bipartisan, the opposition to 
burden sharing. Republican and Democratic Presidents alike have 
resisted it, and we insisted on it. We cannot adequately do that in 10 
hours.
  Mr. Speaker, we cannot deal with this large range of issues that have 
been put together. If you are, in fact, prepared simply to do as you 
are told, if you have presigned on and do not need to think about it, 
OK. But the notion that in 10 hours, with time out
 for votes, you can redefine our relationships to the United Nations 
and NATO, reconstruct our defense command structure, redefine the 
powers of the President, all within a 10-hour period, which will 
include general debate, which will include time for the rules, it is a 
degradation of the legislative process.

  By the way, once again we are being told that one of the reforms the 
Republicans brought to us gets checked at the door. One of the great 
reforms was the reinstitution of the rule that said we will not have 
you on the floor when the committees are meeting. They apparently put 
that reform in so they could waive it every week. They have waived that 
rule more than they have waived the contract. That rule has been 
dispensed with virtually every week, so that Members will be expected 
to be on the floor and deal with the questions of NATO and SDI, et 
cetera, and at the same time simultaneously be in committees.
  Mr. Speaker, this is taking the legislative process hostage so you 
can fulfill a political promise that turned out to be more difficult 
than you thought. No one would describe 10 hours as remotely adequate 
to deal with these very important issues. What the majority is trying 
to do is to cram into an obviously inadequate period of time a series 
of difficult issues, and in part, because this one is beginning to 
unravel. This one is beginning to engender opposition from Republicans 
who have served in high defense and national security positions.
  The implications of this one will not bear scrutiny. Ten hours of 
debate is absolutely a breach of faith with the Democratic process and 
it will engender, I believe on our side, an appropriate response. 
People who tell us that we cannot take adequate time to deal with these 
issues cannot expect to be treated by us as partners in the ongoing 
legislative process when they have so dishonored it.
  Mr. BONIOR. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume.
  Mr. Speaker, just so the newer Members on the other side of the aisle 
and on this side of the aisle understand historically what has happened 
on defense security issues, when we have had defense bills before this 
body, defense authorization bills, over the last several years, we have 
spent up to 2 weeks on those bills. We have had over 200 amendments 
submitted to the Committee on Rules, and we have considered 50 to 100 
amendments on the House floor.
  What you are doing to us now is allowing no more than three or four 
amendments to be considered, and that only in a limited amount of time. 
You are shutting off debate on such important issues as the gentleman 
from Massachusetts pointed out on burden sharing, which will require 
our allies to share some of the defense burden that we have picked up 
for so long.
  That is not a fair way to do business. It is not a fair way to do 
business. And what will you have gained by all this? Do you think the 
other body, for all its faults, and it has faults, is going to stand by 
and let this happen? Do you think they are going to take your product 
of 10 hours and process it and deliver it to the President?
  Nonsense. Nonsense. They are going to talk about NATO and give it the 
time that it deserves, and it is going to be your Republican colleagues 
and Senators in the other body who will lead the way on that. And they 
will do the same thing. They will talk about the defense issues and the 
security issues that we brought to you this evening.
  So we are terribly upset about this, as you can obviously see, and we 
will be raising our voices today, tomorrow, and the next day to make 
sure that we get some justice and some due time.
  Mr. Speaker, I yield to the gentleman from Minnesota [Mr. Sabo].
                              {time}  2130

  Mr. SABO. Mr. Speaker, I am just curious, NATO has been rather 
important to this country for 45 years, almost 50 years. Were there 
extensive hearings in committee as we write new law to change that 
historic relationship?
  Mr. BONIOR. Mr. Speaker, will the gentleman yield?
  Mr. SABO. I yield to the gentleman from Michigan.
  Mr. BONIOR. Mr. Speaker, my friend from Minnesota, as I understand 
it, there were 3 half-day hearings to consider the defense, foreign 
policy issues and intelligence issues that are in this bill, 3 half-day 
hearings.
  Mr. SABO. So it is not only a limited amendment, but it is something 
that sort of rushed through committee that is changing this historic 
relationship that our country has had with our allies?
  Mr. BONIOR. Well, basically the whole contract has been rushed 
through. But we understand some of the concerns on the other side of 
the aisle over some of the issues that my friend from Massachusetts 
raised. They could be debated within a framework of a few hours or 5 
hours or 6 hours. But we are talking about the national security of the 
American public and of this country. We cannot do that in 10 hours.
  Mr. BONIOR. Mr. Speaker, I yield 3 minutes to the distinguished 
gentleman from Illinois [Mr. Durbin].
  Mr. DURBIN. I would like to ask my colleagues to consider for a 
moment what we are about here this evening.
  This bill, H.R. 7, addresses many important topics. We have spent 
about $30 billion on star wars. There is a serious question of how much 
we should spend and whether we would do that and sacrifice the 
readiness of America's Armed Forces. That is worthy of a debate that 
all Members should be involved in.
  There is also a question in this bill as to the role of Commander in 
Chief of the United States. Over the 12 years that I have served in 
this body, I can remember many, many times when we have taken days and 
often weeks to debate the application of that constitutional provision 
in terms of the security of the United States.
  There are questions in this bill as well about the future of NATO. 
And it has been alluded to here that this is one seminal debate on our 
new relationship in this so-called new world order.
  I might say to my colleagues that they may dismiss this as just 
another check mark on the TV Guide ad. It is much more than that to a 
lot of different people.
  During the last week or two, since the 3 half-days of debate on this 
bill, I have had people come to me, Americans, who have friends and 
relatives who live in parts of the world who have traditionally been 
our allies, genuinely concerned about the impact of this bill on the 
future security of these nations.
  Finally, of course, this bill addresses peacekeeping, and that, my 
colleagues, literally addresses life and death issues for America's 
young men and women.
  That is how serious this bill is. I know there is a strong partisan 
feeling on this floor, and I have seen it manifest many times on both 
sides of the aisle over the years. But I would like to address this 
comment to the new Members on both sides of the aisle.
  Many of my colleagues did not serve, and probably did not witness, 
one of the most important debates in the history of this institution. I 
was privileged enough to be here for that debate. It was the debate 
over the entry of the United States into the Persian Gulf war.
  A decision was made by the leadership of the House that this issue 
was so critically important, involving the life and death of American 
citizens, that if necessary we would stay in session around the clock 
so that every Member would be able to express their heartfelt 
[[Page H1674]] feelings. When it was over and the debate ended, most 
people credited that debate as one of our finest hours in the House of 
Representatives.
  We took the time to do it right, because the issue was so important.
  I beg my colleagues now, we would not do it this evening, but 
tomorrow, when Members meet with their Republican leaders, ask them to 
pause and give some consideration to the fact that this, too, is a life 
or death issue. We owe the people we represent the time to sit down, 
deliberate, and make the right decision.
  I hope that my colleagues will prevail on the Committee on Rules and 
their leadership to give us the time to adequately address these 
critically important issues.
  Mr. BONIOR. Mr. Speaker, I yield 3 minutes to the distinguished 
gentleman from West Virginia [Mr. Wise].
  Mr. WISE. Mr. Speaker, there is a saying that Rome was not built in a 
single day, only the Republican majority, though, could think they can 
build the entire U.S. relationship with the world in 10 hours.
  What we are debating, will be debating in that brief period of time, 
ranges literally the world. It is what our sons and daughters do in the 
Armed Forces. It is what the role of the Armed Forces is. It is, what 
role does the United Nations have. What about burden sharing, our 
relationship with many other parts of the world.
  I cannot believe that anyone seriously want to spend just 10 hours on 
it. I understand there is a contract. But does that contract really go 
further than the water's edge in terms of our national security?
  Members can say that, ``No, Bob, we don't limit you. It is an open 
rule in the sense of you can offer any amendment you can.''
  But what has happened, Mr. Speaker, is that they have limited the 
time. And when they limit the time and add in to that the debate or the 
vote time, what they do is they do limit amendments. And by adding in 
the time to actually come over and vote, what they have done is forced 
Members to decide, do I debate or do I vote? Do I ask for a vote on 
some of these crucial, crucial issues?
  I guess what concerns me, Mr. Speaker, is that under this rule, as I 
understand it, it will be 10 hours to debate this entire bill. The 
Republican majority is going to spend less time debating this bill than 
it actually will take to fly to some of these countries one day to see 
what their concerns really are. Indeed, if a congressional delegation's 
flight time was measured by these bills, these planes would not be able 
to make it past Hawaii as we explore Asia or other parts of far distant 
Europe.
  I would just urge, Mr. Speaker, for Members to think about this 
overnight. I do not pretend to be a very senior Member around here, but 
I remember on some of the military bills and armed services bills, 
spending 30 or 40 hours because Members thought it was that important. 
Incidentally, 30 or 40 hours basically taking up amendments from the 
other side, from this Republican side of the aisle.
  I would urge Members to reconsider this and the Committee on Rules to 
reconsider this. Surely, our country's national security deserves more 
than 10 hours debate with vote time included.
  Mr. BONIOR. Mr. Speaker, I yield 3 minutes to the distinguished 
gentleman from North Carolina [Mr. Watt].
  Mr. WATT of North Carolina. Mr. Speaker, since very early in this 
session of Congress, I have been addressing on a number of occasions 
the process by which we deliberate and consider laws for this country.
  I debated and took issue with the cutting off of debate on an 
important bill in the Committee on the Judiciary. I have debated on a 
number of occasions on this floor the process by which we consider 
issues. It seems to me that we have now gotten to the point where it is 
not the process of debate or the process for reaching a reasonable 
result that is at issue but simply reaching that result because some 
Contract With America or contract on America was made with the people.
  Our primary obligation, Mr. Speaker, is to deliberate and study the 
issues that come before us and to debate those issues for the American 
people. The value of this body is the diversity that we bring to this 
body and the ability to hear the various perspectives of people from 
throughout this Nation that 435 Representatives bring here and offer in 
the debate.
                              {time}  2140

  If there is not sufficient time to debate, then that diversity cannot 
be honored.
  Mr. Speaker, I call on my colleagues to reconsider this issue. Give 
us ample time to debate it. Do not tell the American people on one hand 
that we are opening up the process and having a deliberative form of 
government, that we are going to have 10 hours of debate while we count 
the voting time, 15 minutes for each vote, so if we offer 10 
amendments, more than 2\1/2\ hours will be gone just in the amendment 
and voting process. Let us be honest with the American people, and if 
we are going to tell them that we believe in an open society, believe 
in open debate, let us demonstrate it here on the floor of the House 
and have open debate, and have unlimited time for the debate of these 
issues.
  Mr. BONIOR. Mr. speaker, I yield 3 minutes to the gentlewoman from 
Colorado [Mrs. Schroeder].
  Mrs. SCHROEDER. Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentleman for yielding time 
to me.
  Mr. Speaker, I take the well not because I want to delay our 
departure, but because I think what we are doing with H.R. 7 is we are 
engaging in playing politics with one of the most important jobs we 
have here. That is measuring what we think is needed for the national 
security of our country and for our leadership in this new and evolving 
world that is so difficult for all of us to understand.
  Mr. Speaker, what are we doing in this bill? Think about this. We are 
communicating to the rest of the world that we are not going to play in 
the United Nations anymore, we do not like the way it is run, so forget 
the humanitarian missions, the Americans will not be there. Boy, there 
is a heavy message.
  We are also saying, ``We are going to tell them which countries ought 
to come into NATO.'' Mr. Speaker, any country that is in NATO as a full 
member means that we are committed to defend their security, so if 
Chechnya had been allowed into NATO we would now have troops over there 
fighting. Now maybe that is a good idea, but do we do that with 10 
hours of debate? Do we do that without consulting our allies? Do we 
have any idea that the United Nations and NATO are bodies that have 
other countries that belong, and they think they should have some input 
in this, too, and the administration should?
  Mr. Speaker, we are also taking and giving the Pentagon a nanny. We 
are giving them a commission, a political commission. We are 
politicizing all of this. Mr. Speaker, that is real smart. That is what 
we need, are more layers, more layers, and we are going to do that in 
the 10 hours.
  When we look at the commitments we are making budgetarily, Mr. 
Speaker, we are committing to a space-based defense: bring back star 
wars for nostalgia's sake. There is applause over there, they cannot 
wait. The guess is going to be that is $40 billion for the opening 
shot, and heaven only knows where it goes and if it will ever work, at 
a time when readiness is a much more critical concern, I think, and 
when, if we look at the real fear, it is the fact that somebody could 
bring nuclear weapons in and do another World Trade Center.
  Mr. Speaker, I do not know what space-based defense is going to do 
against a world issue. I know it is funny, and I know that people 
think, ``Let's just hurry on and punch this hole in the contract,'' but 
I think the rest of the world is going to look over here and say, 
``What is going on?'' I must say as a Member who has been here a while, 
Mr. Speaker, if we as Democrats had ever done this, the other side of 
the aisle would have gone crazy, to come in here and say we are going 
to redo all of the U.N. stuff, we are going to redo NATO, we are going 
to not deal with burdensharing, we will keep being the policeman of the 
world, we are going to run everything, we are going to do star wars, we 
are going to do it in 10 hours, and we are going to put a politicized 
commission running 
[[Page H1675]] the Pentagon. This is an absolute outrage. I really hope 
people think about this.
  Mr. BONIOR. Mr. Speaker, I yield 3 minutes to the distinguished 
gentleman from Texas [Mr. Edwards].
  Mr. EDWARDS. Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentleman for yielding the time 
to me.
  I know the hour is late, but I happen to represent over 40,000 Army 
soldiers at Fort Hood, TX. I do not come to this floor often. If 
Members will look at my record over 4 years, I seldom come this floor 
in a partisan manner.
  However, Mr. Speaker, I come to the floor at this late hour in saying 
to my colleagues that this is an important issue. We ought to look 
beyond partisanship in deciding how much time is it worth for us to 
debate our national security issues.
  I am a hawk on defense, Mr. Speaker. I believe we ought to spend more 
on defense. If I could get to the right of the gentleman from Texas, 
Charlie Wilson, on defense, I would do it. I believe national defense, 
along with many of my colleagues, is the single most important 
responsibility of the Federal Government, and it deserves more than 10 
hours of debate.
  If it does not deserve it, Mr. Speaker, then certainly the lives of 
our men and women in the Services deserve it. How much is the life an 
one Army soldier worth? 10 Hours? How much is the life of one Marine 
worth? 10 hours? How much is the life of thousands and thousands of 
American servicemen and women worth? Certainly it should be worth more 
than 10 hours.
  Mr. Speaker, I would just suggest that the Contract that we sign as 
Members of Congress to try to protect the lives of the men and women 
brave enough to put their lives on the line for us, that that contract 
is more important than the time schedule of a Contract for America.
  Mr. BONIOR. Mr. Speaker, I yield 3 minutes to the gentleman from 
Massachusetts [Mr. Moakley], the distinguished ranking member of the 
Committee on Rules.
  Mr. MOAKLEY. Mr. Speaker, I thank the minority whip for yielding time 
to me.
  Mr. Speaker, one of the greatest surprises I have had since I have 
been on the Committee on Rules was today, when I was told about this 
other contract that the Republican party had come up with.
  We are not talking this bill up until Wednesday. I asked what the 
purpose was of not giving us at least 24 hours, to go around the clock, 
to bring these amendments forward, because it deals with three very 
heavy subject matters.
  I am sure that Star Wars sticks in some people's throat when they 
talk about it. Probably the quicker they get through speaking about it, 
the better they will feel. However, when we are talking about an item 
that can go up to $46 billion, and the Republicans can spend hours in 
the Committee on Rules on bills that we sent on the suspension 
calendar, when they can break the police bill up into 8 hours, and yet, 
give less than 12 hours on something as important as this, because they 
have to know what their schedule is, well, I told them they do not have 
to know what their schedule is. They have the votes, they can vote it.
  However, I think this is one of the votes that the Republican Party 
will never forget. This is a very giant vote. It is something I have 
never seen in all my time on the Committee on Rules. We used to get 
accused of gagging people, but on this one, they have a tourniquet 
right around all our necks.
  They just do not want to allow anybody, and they think it is funny 
over there, Mr. Speaker, but I would like to see this appear in every 
one of their newspapers, on how little they care for the defense of our 
country when it come to intelligence, when it comes to star wars, when 
it comes to other matters contained in this bill; the bailout.
  Mr. Speaker, this is a sad day in this country. The desert war was a 
great day, when it was a wide open rule, anybody could speak.
  Maybe I should not have said that, because every day the term ``open 
rule'' gets changed. I am waiting for the new Republican dictionary to 
hit my desk, so I really know what they mean by an open rule.
  Mr. Speaker, they accused us of violating the open rules, and it was 
a difficult description of what they now say is an open rule. I would 
hope, Mr. Speaker, that people over there, first-termers, at least, 
will take a very close look at this, because as I said, this is going 
to come back to haunt all of them.
                              {time}  2150

  The SPEAKER pro tempore (Mr. Bonilla). The gentleman is advised that 
he has 1\1/2\ minutes remaining.
  Mr. BONIOR. May I ask how much time, Mr. Speaker, the gentleman from 
Texas has?
  The SPEAKER pro tempore. The gentleman from Texas has 29 minutes 
remaining.
  Mr. BONIOR. Does the gentleman wish to use any of his time?
  Mr. Speaker, I yield myself the balance of the time.
  Let me be very clear that the majority does not wish to respond to 
our concerns and requests this evening.
  Let me just close by suggesting to all of us here this evening that 
when it comes to our national defense, there really is no time limit, 
and what we are about to do this Wednesday and Thursday is to gag this 
institution in a way that frankly I have not seen in a long time.
  As I said earlier, Mr. Speaker, and the gentleman from New York knows 
full well what I am speaking about. When we had a national defense bill 
on this floor, the gentleman from California [Mr. Dellums] spent a full 
2 weeks each and every time he would bring it to the floor. Amendments 
were made in order so all Members of this body had an opportunity to 
participate in a free and a fair way. We are not having that now. We 
are dealing with the most important and crucial issues that will face 
this institution and this body in this Congress, the defense of this 
Nation, the safety of our young men and women who are defending this 
country.
  When you talk about peacekeeping, when you talk about Haiti or Bosnia 
or the Middle East or Somalia, you are talking about whether or not we 
are going to have peace or we are going to have war. And 10 hours is 
not enough time. There is no time limit on our national defense.
  Mr. Speaker, I yield back the balance of my time.
  Mr. ARMEY. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I shall use.
  Mr. Speaker, let me remind the body that the motion before the House 
is that all committees of the House and their subcommittees have 
permission to sit tomorrow, February 14 and for the balance of the week 
while the House is meeting under the 5-minute rule.
  Mr. Speaker, we have worked hard since January 4 and we have already 
accomplished a great deal. House Republicans have applied the laws of 
the land to a Congress which for years saw fit to exempt itself from 
what it imposed upon others.
  With bipartisan support House Republicans brought up and passed a 
balanced budget amendment to the Constitution. With bipartisan support 
we passed legislation ending unfunded mandates, and we have already 
passed wide-ranging crime legislation including strong and effective 
death penalty legislation.
  Oftentimes Democrats have voted with us and we appreciate it as do 
the American people who have been demanding these and other reforms for 
years. But we have much, much more work to do and we will get it done 
in 100 days as we promised.
  Mr. Speaker, I yield back the balance of my time, and I move the 
previous question on the motion.
  The SPEAKER pro tempore. Without objection, the previous question is 
ordered.
  Mr. FRANK of Massachusetts. Mr. Speaker, I object to moving the 
previous question.
  The SPEAKER pro tempore. The question is on ordering the previous 
question.
  The question was taken; and the Speaker pro tempore announced that 
the ayes appeared to have it.
  Mr. FRANK of Massachusetts. Mr. Speaker, on that I demand the yeas 
and nays.
  The yeas and nays were ordered.
  The vote was taken by electronic device, and there were--yeas 222, 
nays 190, not voting 22, as follows:

[[Page H1676]]

                             [Roll No 122]

                               YEAS--222

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

                               NAYS--190

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

                             NOT VOTING--22

     Becerra
     Berman
     Clement
     Clinger
     Cox
     Crapo
     Dooley
     Fattah
     Gibbons
     Hefner
     Jefferson
     Leach
     Martinez
     Matsui
     McDade
     Oxley
     Rose
     Shuster
     Tucker
     Whitfield
     Williams
     Wilson

                              {time}  2209

  Mr. DEAL and Mr. WARD changed their vote from ``yea'' to ``nay.''
  Mrs. KELLY changed her vote from ``nay'' to ``yea.''
  So the previous question was ordered.
  The result of the vote was announced as above recorded.
  The SPEAKER pro tempore (Mr. Bonilla). The question is on the motion 
offered by the gentleman from Texas [Mr. Armey].
  The question was taken; and the Speaker pro tempore announced that 
the ayes appeared to have it.


                             recorded vote

  Mr. BONIOR. Mr. Speaker, I demand a recorded vote.
  A recorded vote was ordered.
  The vote was taken by electronic device, and there were--ayes 220, 
noes 191, not voting 23, as follows:
                             [Roll No. 123]

                               AYES--220

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

                               NOES--191

     Abercrombie
     Ackerman
     Andrews
     Baesler
     Baldacci
     Barcia
     Barrett (WI)
     Beilenson
     Bentsen
     Bevill
     Bishop
     Bonior
     Borski
     Boucher
     Brewster
     Browder
     Brown (CA)
     Brown (FL)
     Brown (OH)
     Bryant (TX)
     Cardin
     Chapman
     Clay
     Clayton
     Clyburn
     Coleman
     Collins (IL)
     Collins (MI)
     Condit
     Conyers
     Costello
     Coyne
     Cramer
     Danner
     de la Garza
     Deal
     DeFazio
     DeLauro
     Dellums
     Deutsch
     Dicks
     Dingell
     Dixon
     Doggett
     Doyle
     Durbin
     Edwards
     Engel
     Eshoo
     Evans
     Farr
     Fazio
     Fields (LA)
     Filner
     Flake
     Foglietta
     Ford
     Frank (MA)
     Frost
     Furse
     Gejdenson
     Gephardt
     Geren
     Gonzalez
     Gordon
     Green
     Gutierrez
     Hall (OH)
     Hall (TX)
     Hamilton
     Harman
     Hastings (FL)
     Hayes
     Hilliard
     Hinchey
     Holden
     Hoyer
     Jackson-Lee
     Jacobs
     Johnson (SD)
     Johnson, E. B.
     Johnston
     Kanjorski
     Kaptur
     Kennedy (MA)
     Kennedy (RI)
     Kennelly
     Kildee
     Kleczka
     Klink
     LaFalce
     Lantos
     Laughlin
     Levin
     Lewis (GA)
     Lincoln
     Lipinski
     Lofgren
     Lowey
     Luther
     Maloney
     Manton
     Markey
     Mascara
     McCarthy
     [[Page H1677]] McDermott
     McHale
     McKinney
     McNulty
     Meehan
     Meek
     Menendez
     Mfume
     Miller (CA)
     Mineta
     Minge
     Mink
     Moakley
     Mollohan
     Montgomery
     Moran
     Murtha
     Nadler
     Neal
     Oberstar
     Obey
     Olver
     Ortiz
     Orton
     Owens
     Pallone
     Parker
     Pastor
     Payne (NJ)
     Payne (VA)
     Pelosi
     Peterson (FL)
     Peterson (MN)
     Pickett
     Pomeroy
     Poshard
     Rahall
     Rangel
     Reed
     Reynolds
     Richardson
     Rivers
     Roemer
     Roybal-Allard
     Rush
     Sabo
     Sanders
     Sawyer
     Schroeder
     Schumer
     Scott
     Serrano
     Sisisky
     Skaggs
     Skelton
     Slaughter
     Spratt
     Stark
     Stenholm
     Stokes
     Studds
     Stupak
     Tanner
     Tauzin
     Taylor (MS)
     Tejeda
     Thompson
     Thornton
     Thurman
     Torres
     Torricelli
     Towns
     Traficant
     Velazquez
     Vento
     Visclosky
     Volkmer
     Ward
     Waters
     Watt (NC)
     Waxman
     Wise
     Woolsey
     Wyden
     Wynn
     Yates

                             NOT VOTING--23

     Becerra
     Berman
     Clement
     Clinger
     Cox
     Crapo
     Dooley
     Fattah
     Gibbons
     Hefner
     Jefferson
     Leach
     Martinez
     Matsui
     McCrery
     McDade
     Oxley
     Rose
     Shuster
     Tucker
     Whitfield
     Williams
     Wilson

                              {time}  2226

  Mr. WATT of North Carolina changed his vote from ``aye'' to ``no.''
  So the motion was agreed to.
  The result of the vote was announced as above recorded.
  A motion to reconsider was laid on the table.
  

                          ____________________