[Congressional Record Volume 141, Number 33 (Wednesday, February 22, 1995)]
[House]
[Pages H1979-H1984]
From the Congressional Record Online through the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]


[[Page H1979]]
    PROVIDING FOR CONSIDERATION OF H.R. 889, EMERGENCY SUPPLEMENTAL 
APPROPRIATIONS AND RESCISSIONS FOR THE DEPARTMENT OF DEFENSE FOR FISCAL 
                               YEAR 1995

  Mr. DREIER. Mr. Speaker, by direction of the Committee on Rules, I 
call up House Resolution 92 and ask for its immediate consideration.
  The Clerk read the resolution, as follows:

                               H. Res. 92
       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. 889) making emergency supplemental 
     appropriations and rescissions to preserve and enhance the 
     military readiness of the Department of Defense for the 
     fiscal year ending September 30, 1995, and for other 
     purposes. The first reading of the bill shall be dispensed 
     with. General debate shall be confined to the bill and the 
     amendments made in order by this resolution and shall not 
     exceed one hour equally divided and controlled by the 
     chairman and ranking minority member of the Committee on 
     Appropriations. After general debate the bill shall be 
     considered for amendment under the five-minute rule and shall 
     be considered as read. Points of order against provisions in 
     the bill for failure to comply with clause 2 of rule XXI are 
     waived. It shall be in order to consider as an original bill 
     for the purpose of amendment under the five-minute rule an 
     amendment in the nature of a substitute consisting of the 
     text of H.R. 889 modified as follows: on page 16, after line 
     12, insert a new title V consisting of the text of the bill 
     (H.R. 845) rescinding certain budget authority, and for other 
     purposes. The amendment in the nature of a substitute shall 
     be considered as read. Points of order against that amendment 
     in the nature of a substitute for failure to comply with 
     clause 7 of rule XVI or clause 2 or 6 of rule XXI are waived. 
     No other amendment shall be in order except the amendment in 
     the nature of a substitute printed in the report of the 
     Committee on Rules accompanying this resolution, which may be 
     offered only by Representative Obey of Wisconsin or his 
     designee, shall be considered as read, shall be debatable for 
     one hour equally divided and controlled by the proponent and 
     an opponent, and shall not be subject to amendment. Points of 
     order against the amendment in the nature of a substitute for 
     failure to comply with clause 2 of rule XXI are waived. At 
     the conclusion of consideration of the bill for amendment, 
     the Committee shall rise and report the bill to the House 
     with such amendment as may have been adopted. Any Member may 
     demand a separate vote in the House on any amendment adopted 
     in the Committee of the Whole to the bill or to the amendment 
     in the nature of a substitute made in order as original text. 
     The previous question shall be considered as ordered on the 
     bill and any amendment thereto to final passage without 
     intervening motion except one motion to recommit with or 
     without instructions.

  The SPEAKER pro tempore (Mr. Emerson). The gentleman from California 
[Mr. Dreier] is recognized for 1 hour.
  Mr. DREIER. Mr. Speaker, all time yielded is for the purpose of 
debate only, and I yield the customary 30 minutes to the gentleman from 
Dallas, TX [Mr. Forst], pending which I yield myself such time as I may 
consume.
  (Mr. DREIER asked and was given permission to revise and extend his 
remarks.)
  Mr. DREIER. Mr. Speaker, this is a new era of fiscal responsibility. 
Congress is committed to requiring the Federal Government to live 
within its means. In short, we have seen business as usual that has 
resulted in a $4.7 trillion national debt come to an end. In order to 
foster fiscal responsibility the Committee on Rules has reported a fair 
and balanced rule for this emergency defense supplemental.

                              {time}  1200

  Mr. Speaker, the rule makes in order as an original bill for the 
purpose of an amendment an amendment in the nature of a substitute 
consisting of the text of H.R. 889, which makes emergency supplementary 
appropriations for military readiness, and rescinds $1.46 billion in 
defense spending, amended to add the text of H.R. 845, a bill 
rescinding $1.4 billion in budget authority for a range of low-priority 
foreign aid and domestic spending programs.
  In order to permit the House to consider the texts of two bills 
together, this rule waives clause 7 of rule XVI pertaining to 
germaneness and clause 6 of rule XXI regarding reappropriations.
  The rule provides for 1 hour of general debate and an amendment in 
the nature of a substitute, which may be offered by the ranking 
minority member of the Committee on Appropriations or his designee. 
That amendment shall not be subject to amendment. Finally, the minority 
is provided with one motion to recommit, with or without instructions.
  Due to the unforeseen nature of emergency appropriations, the rule 
waives clause 2 of rule XXI against the bill and the amendment 
consisting of the text of H.R. 889 and H.R. 845. The rule prohibits 
unauthorized appropriations.
  In the name of fairness, the amendment in the nature of a substitute 
provided to the rule by the ranking minority member of the Committee on 
Appropriations will receive the same rule waiver.
  Mr. Speaker, changing the culture of deficit spending is not easy. 
The American people need only look to the other body to observe the 
daily antics of reactionaries fighting to stop bipartisan proposals 
such as the balanced budget amendment and an effective line-item veto.
  In the past, Congress simply added emergency spending to the deficit. 
Even with a Federal budget of $1.5 trillion, there was always an excuse 
why offsetting spending cuts could not be found.
  Mr. Speaker, things have changed. Our new leadership in the House has 
committed itself to finding offsets for all supplemental spending 
bills. The deficit buck stops here. Make no mistake, this defense 
supplemental addresses a true emergency. As the Preamble to the 
Constitution so clearly states, providing for the common defense is a 
preeminent responsibility of the Federal Government.
  While we debate, the readiness of our armed forces is threatened by a 
strangulation of resources. Eleven years in a row of reduced defense 
spending, combined with a series of operations in far-flung places like 
Haiti, Bosnia, Somalia, Iraq, Rwanda, and the Korean Peninsula have 
created an emergency. The Secretary of Defense and our leader military 
commanders have indicated that without these supplemental funds being 
provided by March 31, readiness and training will be cut back to 
dangerous levels.
  Mr. Speaker, I would like to repeat this. The Secretary of Defense 
and our leading military commanders have indicated that if these 
supplemental funds are not available by March 31, readiness and 
training will be back to dangerous levels.
  This rule provides a procedure to consider this emergency defense 
supplemental in a manner that is fiscally responsible. The Committee on 
Appropriations met the challenge of reporting rescissions to fully 
offset all the new spending, a challenge that the President has, 
unfortunately, not met.
  In addition, the minority is given both a substitute amendment and a 
motion to recommit with instruction to offer alternatives.
  To those who believe that far more can be done in the area of 
rescissions, I totally agree. That day is coming. The chairman of the 
Committee on Appropriations testified before our Committee on Rules 
that a major rescissions bill will be coming to the floor soon, 
possibly in March. That rescission, because it is not related to a 
national security emergency, will be considered under a much more open 
amendment process.
  Mr. Speaker, this is a fair, balanced, and responsible rule. It 
provides the minority with two opportunities to provide alternative 
proposals. It provides the same substantive waivers to the amendment as 
are provided to the bill. All new spending, even though we have an 
emergency, is offset.
  Finally, Mr. Speaker, this rule increases the likelihood we can 
maintain military readiness by enacting the necessary legislation by 
March 31.
  Mr. Speaker, I urge my colleagues on both sides of the aisle to 
support this fair, balanced, and very responsible rule.
  Mr. Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.
  Mr. FROST. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume.
  Mr. Speaker, since the end of the cold war, the United States has 
called upon the men and women of our armed services to perform duties 
ranging from humanitarian assistance, to peacekeeping, to engaging in 
an all out war. And these duties have been performed ably and with 
honor in an era of decreased funding for the entire Federal budget. 
[[Page H1980]] There is not a one of us here today who can feel 
anything but pride in the job that our Armed Forces have done in 
Africa, in the Middle East, in the Balkans, or in the Caribbean.
  We are here to consider legislation to recoup the expenditures 
required for DOD contingency operations undertaken in the course of the 
past year. The President has asked the Congress to provide these funds, 
and we are fulfilling our responsibility by acting on that request. 
There is no other acceptable course of action.
  But, Mr. Speaker, I must rise in opposition to House Resolution 92 
which provides for the consideration of H.R. 889, the Department of 
Defense emergency supplemental, as well as for the consideration of 
H.R. 845 which rescinds $1.4 billion in domestic discretionary budget 
authority. I want to be very clear that I support the provision of 
supplemental appropriations to the Defense Department in order that we, 
as a nation, do not find our strategic and defensive posture 
compromised.
  But, Mr. Speaker, just a few short weeks ago I joined with over two-
thirds of my colleagues in this body in supporting a constitutional 
amendment to balance the budget of the United States. That amendment 
did not exempt defense spending from its requirements, yet I cannot 
help but think that this supplemental--whether designated as an 
emergency or not--is not paid for and
 only adds to the deficit which we are so committed to erasing.

  The Committee on Appropriations has recommended, in addition to the 
DOD supplemental, a bill which rescinds $1.4 billion in discretionary 
domestic spending which purports to cover the expenditures provided in 
the supplemental. However, there are many on this side of the aisle who 
wonder if these cuts are nothing more than a fig leaf. There seems to 
be some question whether our colleagues in the Senate will use domestic 
cuts to pay for defense increases. But, whether the Senate enacts these 
domestic rescissions or not, this bill still creates an outlay 
shortfall--nearly $300 million in this fiscal year and $645 million 
over the next 5 fiscal years. Mr. Speaker, where I come from those 
numbers can only mean one thing: We are adding to, not subtracting 
from, the deficit.
  For that reason, Mr. Speaker, I urge my colleagues to vote ``no'' on 
this rule in order that the Committee on Rules might reconsider how we 
might deal with the critical necessity of meeting these urgent 
requirements of the branches of our Armed Forces while not adding to 
the national debt.
  As this rule is constructed, there is really only one opportunity for 
Members to vote to not increase the deficit while at the same time 
assuring that DOD readiness is not impaired--by fully compensating the 
Defense Department for its contingency expenses. The Rules Committee 
has allowed for the consideration of only one amendment, a substitute 
by the gentleman from Wisconsin [Mr. Obey]. The Obey substitute is 
deficit neutral over the next 5 years. But, other than the Obey 
substitute, the committee has precluded the consideration of any other 
amendments, even amendments to strike portions of the bill and an 
amendment proposed by Mr. Brown of California which would actually cut 
the deficit.
  Mr. Speaker, I must ask why is only the Obey substitute made in 
order? Why is it necessary to consider this supplemental under such a 
restrictive rule? When the House considered the most recent 
supplemental--the 1994 California earthquake emergency supplemental--
the Committee on Rules provided for the consideration of six 
amendments, not just one amendment, the Obey amendment in this case. 
Chairman Solomon then protested that the rule was too restrictive. He 
said, and I quote: ``Even when you move a bill with all deliberate 
speed, you must still deliberate--that is, carefully weigh and debate 
the merits of the legislation and consider amendments to improve on 
it.'' I would recommend to my colleagues that the chairman's words are 
every bit as relevant today as they were 1 year ago.
  In addition, Mr. Speaker, when the House considered a supplemental 
appropriation in May 1993, under an open rule, my colleagues on the 
other side protested that the rule was not open enough. I would quote 
Mr. Goss who said, ``True this is an open rule, but because of the 
rules of the House, there are several important amendments that were 
brought to the Rules Committee that will not be allowed to be 
considered, even under this open rule.'' Mr. Speaker, the Democrats on 
the Rules Committee have not even asked for an open rule in the case of 
House Resolution 92. What we have asked for is an opportunity for the 
House to consider amendments which might allow the House to fulfill its 
commitment to deficit reduction, not for a closed rule as has been 
reported out by the committee.
  Therefore, Mr. Speaker, I would renew my appeal that this rule be 
defeated in order that the Committee on Rules might have an opportunity 
to quickly reconsider a rule for this supplemental. Time is of the 
essence, but so is our commitment to the defense of this Nation and to 
deficit reduction.
  Mr. Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.
  Mr. DREIER. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume, 
to simply respond to my friend, the gentleman from Texas, by making it 
very clear that there is an important distinction between this year and 
last. That is, we have offsets, so that must be underscored time and 
time again.
  We are not going into deficit spending here, we are having offsets, 
which this Committee on Appropriations, under the leadership of the 
gentleman from Louisiana [Mr. Livingston], has adequately recognized.
  Mr. Speaker, I yield such time as he may consume to my friend, the 
gentleman from Johnstown, PA [Mr. Murtha], the distinguished former 
chairman of the Subcommittee on Defense of the Committee on 
Appropriations and a strong proponent of a tough defense posture.
  Mr. MURTHA. Mr. Speaker, let me come at this from a little different 
direction.
  Let me say, Mr. Speaker, that I come at this from the same position I 
have always taken. When I went down to see President Clinton right 
after he was elected, I said ``Mr. President, we have been cutting the 
defense budget substantially over the last 6 or 7 years, and we have 
been trying to do it in a way where we did not end up with a hollow 
force. We did not want the disaster we had after World War II, after 
Korea, and after Vietnam.
  I said to him that the only way that I can support this reduced 
budget, which he was proposing, was if he sent a supplemental 
appropriation for extraneous operations. As many of the Members know, I 
opposed the Somalia incursion, and yet last year, in a bipartisan 
effort, we funded that program substantially without offsets.
  The Haiti invasion I personally supported. Most of the members of the 
subcommittee did not support it. However, we felt very strongly that 
the Congress passed legislation which supported Haiti, and this helps 
to refund money that the military has already spent. There is no way 
that we can continue the type
 of readiness we need to deploy troops quickly if we offset this money.

  Mr. Speaker, I know there are two plans. One is to offset if from the 
rescissions, and one is to offset if from the Defense Department. I do 
not like either, but my proposal is that we move this supplemental 
forward. I am in favor of a restrictive rule. I feel very strongly 
about it, that we have to move this forward so that in the end we will 
be able to work this thing out.
  In working with the new chairman, the gentleman from Florida, Bill 
Young, and the gentleman from Louisiana, Bob Livingston, the chairman, 
there has been no proposal that I have made that they have not listened 
to and tried to find a way to work out.
  I understand the pressure. I did not vote for the balanced budget 
amendment. Two-thirds of the House did, so I understand why there is a 
feeling that it is necessary, but I support the administration's 
position that this money should not be offset.
  Actually, Mr. Speaker, if we were to offset all the money for these 
kinds of operations, it destroys the very thing we have done over the 
last few years, and that is to try to very delicately reduce the size 
of the force and make money available when there is an extraneous 
operation.
  Many of the Members on the subcommittee feel exactly the same way, 
many of the Members of the floor feel 
[[Page H1981]] the same way, but the pressure is to offset. Mr. 
Speaker, I am hopeful that as this legislation works its way through 
the Congress, we will be able to make some changes that are reasonable.
  There is no question in my mind, Mr. Speaker, the Senate will 
eliminate the $600 million which the chairman put into the bill, and he 
feels very strongly about, because I do not think the offsets can be 
found from the Defense Department without hurting the very viability 
and readiness of the Defense Department.
  I feel strongly that there should be a restricted rule, that we 
should move forward with this legislation. All the Commanders in Chief 
of the various regions have said to us they have to have this 
legislation by the end of March. It is absolutely essential we get it 
through the House, that we get it over to the Senate, let the Senate 
act on it, and then we will work our will in conference.
  Mr. Speaker, I just want to add that I understand what the gentleman 
from Wisconsin [Mr. Obey] is trying
 to do. I feel very strongly, I am against that just as much as I am 
against the rescissions, so may feeling is very clear. My position is 
very clear. I am against any offsets. I think this bill should not be 
offset. I do not think we ought to take it out of the hide of the 
military.

  On the other hand, I think we ought to move this legislation forward. 
I think this is the only way to get the legislation through in any 
method so we can start addressing it in the Senate.

                              {time}  1215

  I support what the Committee on Rules has done. I think this is the 
only kind of a rule that will expedite the matter and we should pass 
the legislation as quickly as we can and get to conference where we can 
work out the details.
  Mr. FROST. Mr. Speaker, for the purpose of debate only, I yield 5 
minutes to the gentleman from Massachusetts [Mr. Moakley], ranking 
member of the Committee on Rules.
  Mr. MOAKLEY. Mr. Speaker, I thank my colleague, the gentleman from 
Texas [Mr. Frost], for yielding me this time.
  Mr. Speaker, today we are being force-fed another closed rule that 
will prevent Members from trying to repair two badly flawed bills.
  That is right, I said bills. This rule makes one bill out of two 
Republicans say that is because the two bills are closely linked, one 
is designed to pay for the other.
  But according to the Washington Post that will not happen. The Post 
reported that Senate Appropriations chairman Hatfield said the Senate 
will not consider domestic cuts to pay for military spending.
  Since it takes both Houses to rescind appropriations it looks like 
Republicans do not have a way to pay for this increased military 
spending. Because if the Senate is not going to take up the rescissions 
bill, it just is not going to happen. It is that simple.
  And these supposed domestic cuts will end up as no more than a 
political fig leaf for Members who want to say they are cutting the 
deficit when, in fact, they are doing the opposite. Even if the Senate 
agrees to domestic cuts, this bill still adds $282 million to the 
deficit this year and $645 million over 5 years.
  And today's emergency supplemental directly contradicts the position 
Republicans took on the National Defense Revitalization Act.
  Republicans who voted for H.R. 7 said in effect that they wanted to 
put the House on a path to restore the firewalls between defense and 
domestic spending.
  But soon after voting to restore the firewalls with H.R. 7, 
Republican Members are voting to ignore them with this bill.
  Mr. Speaker, I would be interested in knowing whether my Republican 
colleagues want the firewalls or not.
  I urge my colleagues to oppose this rule and give Members a chance to 
fix this bill. And this bill needs all the help it can get.
  That is why I am surprised the Republicans on the Rules Committee put 
out this closed rule. Plenty of Members, both Democratic and 
Republican, have lots of good ideas on how to cut spending.
  I wonder, Mr. Speaker, what the Republican leadership is afraid of.
  I urge my Republican and Democratic colleagues who want a chance to 
cut Government spending to join me in opposing the rule.
  Mr. DREIER. Mr. Speaker, we have seen the bipartisan nature of 
support for this rule with the statement from the gentleman from 
Pennsylvania [Mr. Murtha].
  Mr. Speaker, I yield 4 minutes to the gentleman from Indian Rocks 
Beach, FL [Mr. Young], the distinguished chairman of the Subcommittee 
on National Security of the Committee on Appropriations.
  Mr. YOUNG of Florida. Mr. Speaker, I want to thank my colleague the 
gentleman from Pennsylvania [Mr. Murtha], a former chairman of this 
subcommittee, for the strong support that he gave us as we put this 
bill together. I think that he would disagree with the previous 
speaker, as do I, that this bill is flawed. Is it perfect? Absolutely 
not. I do not think I have ever seen a perfect bill before the House 
since I have been here. But this is a good bill.
  The problem that we face today is time, Mr. Speaker. When I was 
designated chairman of this subcommittee in the middle of November, I 
began meeting with folks at the Pentagon, the Defense Department, the 
civilian leaders, the military leaders, with commanders in the field, 
with war fighters. My question was, ``What do we need to look forward 
to for the next year to help secure our Nation's defense?''
  Every one to a person said, ``We've got to have the supplemental to 
pay for the contingencies'' that we have already committed or are 
involved in committing today. And they told us without any hesitation 
that March 31 was the deadline, that if we did not get the money to 
them by March 31, fourth-quarter training, flying hours, steaming 
hours, all kind of training was going to be degraded to the point that 
it would have a serious effect on readiness.
  We committed to moving this bill expeditiously so that we could get 
it to the Defense Department by March 31. We are a week behind. We set 
a schedule that would move us along expeditiously. We are a week behind 
that schedule. We had difficulty getting a request for this 
supplemental from the administration. We finally got it. The truth is, 
we marked up ahead of the administration's request just to keep on our 
timetable.
  One of the reasons that the administration hesitated in sending a 
request down here was that they were afraid this would become a target, 
or a vehicle for all kind of mischievous or extraneous nondefense-
related activities. They did not want that to happen. Neither did we. 
So we have brought this out under a rule where the gentleman from 
Wisconsin [Mr. Obey] has every opportunity to rewrite every section of 
this bill. He will do so in a substitute that he will offer here 
shortly.
  But we have got to keep on track. We cannot sit here and decide what 
we think is right based on what we assume might happen in the other 
body. We should not be assuming what the other body might do. We have 
got to keep this bill moving. We will get into the debate as to why 
after we pass the rule, but this rule is a good rule to expedite this 
emergency defense supplemental.
  Mr. FROST. Mr. Speaker, for purposes of debate only, I yield 3 
minutes to the gentleman from Wisconsin [Mr. Obey].
  Mr. OBEY. Mr. Speaker, I will very reluctantly vote for this rule 
because it provides for the offering of an amendment which I want to 
offer and I think it would come with ill grace if I did not support it. 
But I would simply say that I hope that Members are not fooled by this 
process that is going on today.
  What has happened is very simple. The President sent down a $2.5 
billion supplemental. He offset it with $700 million in rescission, 
leaving a gap of about $1.8 billion added to the deficit.
  The committee decided they were going to add $670 million to the 
bill. They also added about $700 million to the rescission, so they 
also wound up with a $1.8 billion gap in spending. Then both sides got 
the benefit of almost $400 million in CBO scoring adjustments which 
means that at this point, the original bill that came out of the 
committee added $1.4 billion to the deficit.
  [[Page H1982]] To try to cover that fact, the committee then decided 
they would produce a second rescission bill which ostensibly cuts $1.4 
billion in nondefense items in order to pay for the supplemental. The 
problem is that that fig leaf does not do the job.
  First of all, as everyone knew, the Senate was going to deep-six that 
second bill when it went over to the Senate, and that would have left 
us with that still $1.4 billion deficit hole in the bill.
  So now reacting to that problem, what this rule is going to do is to 
merge the two bills so that the ``let's pretend'' second part of the 
act gets merged with the real first act and somehow they then want to 
suggest that the bill is entirely paid for.
  The problem is it is still not paid for. It is paid for on the budget 
authority side but it is not paid for on the outlay side. As everyone 
knows in this place, the deficit is measured by outlays.
  The fact is that even if you adopt this rule today, you will wind up 
if you vote for this package as is adding $282 million to the deficit 
this fiscal year and $644 million to the deficit over 5 years. That 
from a crowd that says that we are supposed to balance the budget 
through a constitutional amendment. I find that ironic indeed.
  That is why I am offering my amendment. My amendment simply says 
this: It says instead of adding all of the bells and whistles and all 
of the let's pretend gimmicks in the second bill, let's drop everything 
except the administration's original request so that you have got a 
bill that costs $2.5 billion, and then give the Secretary of Defense 
the authority to make reductions in low-priority items and pork items 
in order to balance off the book. That is the only way we can keep a 
commitment to balance the budget.
  Mr. DREIER. Mr. Speaker, I yield 3 minutes to my very good friend, 
the gentleman from Sanibel, FL [Mr. Goss], my colleague on the 
Committee on Rules and chairman of the Subcommittee on Legislative 
Process.
  (Mr. GOSS asked and was given permission to revise and extend his 
remarks.)
  Mr. GOSS. Mr. Speaker, I thank my friend from greater metropolitan 
San Dimas, CA, for yielding me this time.
  I thank the gentleman from California [Mr. Dreier] and as well the 
gentleman from New York [Mr. Solomon], the distinguished chairman of 
the Committee on Rules, for their hard work in crafting what I think is 
a very fair and well-tailored rule. The purpose is to implement a 
policy that many of us have long advocated around here, and, that is, 
paying for what we do. This rule will allow us to marry together an 
important defense appropriations supplemental bill needed to provide 
for military missions already undertaken as described by the gentleman 
from Florida [Mr. Young] with a rescissions package designed to 
actually pay for them. What is at stake here is really restoring 
readiness to our forces, which I think is beyond question a life-and-
death issue for our troops.
  The rule also allows the gentleman from Wisconsin [Mr. Obey], the 
ranking member of the Committee on Appropriations, the opportunity to 
offer a substitute package. Frankly, I am little puzzled by the Obey 
amendment as I have seen it so far.
  As best I can tell, the gentleman from Wisconsin [Mr. Obey] has 
suggested temporarily granting a power I thought he opposed, that is, 
the line-item veto authority to the Secretary of Defense, a 
distinguished but nevertheless unelected official, and this is all 
without ensuring congressional review.
  For those who thought H.R. 2, the line-item veto act passed by this 
House last month, was a little too much delegation of power away from 
Congress, I would have to think that the Obey approach, giving line-
item veto to the Secretary of Defense, would be completely out of 
bounds. But that remains to be seen.
  Finally, I wish to comment on the substance of this defense 
supplemental appropriations bill. The bulk of the money is earmarked to 
cover the costs of unbudgeted contingency operations in places like 
Somalia and Haiti. This is money that has already been spent and some 
of us think unwisely in part. Now the bill is coming due.
  Although I strongly support our military, as we all do, and recognize 
that at this point we have no choice but to settle up our accounts on 
missions already underway or done, I am really troubled by the 
administration's tendency to embark on costly, ill-defined peacekeeping 
adventures around the globe without consulting with the Congress, and 
then coming forward after the fact and saying, ``Oh, we've got to have 
some money.''
  This trend was especially disturbing in the case of Haiti where the 
administration did find a lot of time to seek U.N. approval for its 
plans but somehow or other did not seem interested in coming up to get 
some congressional support in advance for sending our troops there.
  We have drained funds from our troops readiness to pay for what is 
arguably the misuse of our military in Haiti, and many Americans, 
including this one, strongly resent it.
  Mr. Speaker, I fully expect a broad discussion of foreign policy and 
the appropriate use of our troops to continue as we move into the 
regular budget cycle. That is what we do. But in the meantime, I urge 
support for this creative rule, even though I know very full well there 
are those on the other side of the aisle who voted for misadventures 
such as the one we have experienced in Haiti who now do not want to pay 
for the bill.
  We must pass this bill. It is a matter of life and death for our 
troops that we count on.
  Mr. FROST. Mr. Speaker, for the purpose of debate only, I yield 3 
minutes to the gentleman from California [Mr. Brown].
  (Mr. BROWN of California asked and was given permission to revise and 
extend his remarks.)
  Mr. BROWN of California. Mr. Speaker, I rise today in opposition to 
the rule and to bring to the Members' attention the inappropriate, 
business-as-usual way in which rescissions were generated for the DOD 
supplemental appropriations bill.
  In the last days of the 103d Congress, the House voted on whether to 
eliminate $289.5 million of pork in the HUD portion of the VA, HUD and 
Independent Agencies' appropriations bill. One-hundred-seventy-nine 
Members voted with me to eliminate these earmarks; 189 did not. Today I 
planned to offer an amendment that would give this body a second chance 
to do the right thing--to vote to eliminate those earmarks in this 
rescission package. Unfortunately, last night, the Rules Committee 
denied us this opportunity.
  Does this bill rescind any ``items of congressional interest,'' 
``directed appropriations,'' or ``special purpose grants?'' The answer, 
of course, is no. Instead of going after pork-barrel appropriations, 
the bill's drafters chose to cut $1.3 billion from merit-based, 
competitively awarded research and development programs--vital 
investment in our Nation's future.
  My colleagues in the House know of my active opposition to the 
practice of earmarking. In the past, a large majority of those who 
joined me in that effort came from my colleagues on the other side of 
the aisle. I am extremely disappointed that the first rescission 
package brought to the floor contains not a single cut to earmarked 
projects.
  Although, my esteemed colleagues on the Appropriations Committee will 
be marking up another rescission package later this week, it will be 
too late to recapture the pork projects funded at HUD. Of the $289.5 
million in HUD earmarks, $94.5 million has already been obligated. The 
obligation of another $149.2 million is in process. All of these funds 
have been obligated since the first of this year, which must be a 
record rate to get earmarks out the door. By the time the next 
rescission package comes to the floor of the House, there will be not a 
penny left to rescind.
  In all my years in Congress, I have heard hundreds of speeches 
decrying pork-barrel politics, the majority of them coming from my 
Republican colleagues. Indeed the Republican views on the fiscal year 
1994 Budget Act included a strong plea for the elimination of 
earmarking. However, perhaps my Republican colleagues are finding it 
harder to cut pork now that they are in the majority. Of the HUD 
earmarks nearly 32 percent goes to five States who elected Republican 
Governors or Senators in the last election. 
[[Page H1983]] In times when Federal and State budgets are shrinking, 
congressional earmarked largesse must be particularly welcome.
  Today, the House had a chance to send a signal to the American public 
that pork-barrel politics had ended. For reasons that are unclear to 
me, the Rules Committee precluded me from offering this amendment. From 
my vantage point, whether you call these projects a silk purse or a 
sow's ear, it looks like it will be business as usual in the 104th 
Congress.
                              {time}  1230

  Mr. DREIER. Mr. Speaker, may I inquire of my friend from Dallas how 
many speakers there are on his side?
  The SPEAKER pro tempore (Mr. Emerson). The gentleman indicates he has 
one additional speaker.
  Mr. DREIER. Mr. Speaker, how much time is remaining on both sides?
  The SPEAKER pro tempore. The gentleman from California [Mr. Dreier] 
has 13 minutes remaining and the gentleman from Texas [Mr. Frost] has 
13\1/2\ minutes remaining.
  Mr. FROST. Mr. Speaker, for the purposes of debate only, I yield 4 
minutes to the gentlewoman from California [Ms. Harman].
  (Ms. HARMAN asked and was given permission to revise and extend her 
remarks.
  Ms. HARMAN. Mr. Speaker, I am for the supplemental, for a strong 
defense, and a supporter of the balanced budget amendment, but I rise 
in opposition to the rule for H.R. 889, because it does not permit 
adequate debate on the technology reinvestment project, a key dual-use 
technology program. I hoped to offer an amendment consistent with the 
approach of the bill providing additional rescissions--as recommended 
by the Department of Defense--that would have permitted the restoration 
of approximately half the funding for fiscal year 1995 for TRP. 
Unfortunately, I was denied the ability to offer my amendment.
  Even though my amendment has been shut out, I rise now to express my 
strong support for the TRP program.
  I believe that TRP is misunderstood, and its problems exaggerated. 
Without the TRP approach, DOD will not be able to access, shape, and 
afford much of the technology it needs.
  TRP gives DOD greater access to affordable, leading-edge technology 
by leveraging commercial capabilities and markets for military benefit. 
Let me repeat that; for military benefit. A great many defense needs 
can be served better and less expensively using commercial means.
  TRP projects are competitively awarded--as a result, these projects 
have been awarded to qualified companies and consortiums throughout the 
country and throughout our districts. These awards--which require a 50 
percent match for the applicant--are based on the requirement that the 
technologies pursued benefit our national security needs.
  TRP projects are developing dual-use technologies in a range of 
areas: low-cost night vision, high-density data storage, battlefield 
casualty treatment, affordable composite aircraft structures, and 
detection of chemical and biological agents.
  Few programs have received the level of scrutiny as the TRP. 
Receiving both considerable praise and criticism, the program was 
modified to expand participation by small business and increase the 
military services' involvement to ensure rapid integration into defense 
weapon systems.
  Obviously, these changes have not satisfied the new majority. if we 
need to modify TRP further, by all means, let's do so. But I urge my 
colleagues to vote against rescinding all of the TRP funding and 
against killing a key dual-use technology program--it's too important 
for our industrial base as well our national security.
  Mr. FROST. Mr. Speaker, if this is the concluding speaker of the 
gentleman from California, I would then sum up by simply stating we 
continue to be opposed to the rule. I would ask the House to reject 
this rule.
  Mr. Speaker, I yield back the balance of my time.
  Mr. DREIER. Mr. Speaker, this is a very bipartisan rule, the support 
that has emerged from the ranking minority member of the committee and 
the former chairman of the Defense Appropriations Subcommittee has 
demonstrated that.
  Mr. Speaker, I yield the balance of my time to the distinguished 
gentleman from Metairie, LA [Mr. Livingston], chairman of the Committee 
on Appropriations.
  (Mr. LIVINGSTON asked and was given permission to revise and extend 
his remarks.)
  Mr. LIVINGSTON. Mr. Speaker, I thank my friend from California for 
yielding time to me, and I rise in strong support of the rule. As he 
said, it does have bipartisan support. I think it is a good rule, a 
fair rule, and in the name of restoring funds to the Defense Department 
that are needed for emergency purposes to avoid a wholesale curtailment 
of operations and to avoid a risk of failure to support our young 
people in uniform, I think that it is very important that we not only 
support the rule, but that we support the bill.
  The rule before us basically does three things. First it merges two 
bills developed by the Committee on Appropriations; namely, the defense 
supplemental and a companion rescission bill into one legislative 
proposal. The net effect of those two actions is to rescind 
approximately $14 million in budget authority more than we appropriate. 
That is, we are actually taking back $14 million in budget authority 
that we appropriated last year in excess of what we are spending on 
defense.
  I note that there has been some defense of TRP, the Technical 
Research Program that we cut back in this rescission package. I would 
have to say that there may be some argument for retaining some of the 
programs that have been rescinded, but, frankly, I have a hard time 
understanding that when F-14s are crashing into one another, when 
accidents are happening on aircraft carriers in which young service 
people are killed, when an F-15 shoots down two U.N. helicopters filled 
with U.S. and U.N. personnel, that such programs as an advanced 
automatic train control system for the Bay Area Rapid Transit System 
that cost $39 million of taxpayers' funds is necessary. Likewise, when 
tanks are forced to stop, and their crews are forced to get out because 
the engines in those tanks are risking the possibility of catching fire 
and exploding, and then they do their tank maneuvers by walking around 
in the desert, I have a hard time explaining why the Diversity in 
Cultural Change Program involving manufacturing at the University of 
Wisconsin, which expends $3.3 million in taxpayers funds, or the 
Holistic Approach to Preparing Students to Learn and Lead in New 
Manufacturing paradigm at a cost of $3.7 million, or the Realization 
Coalition, whatever that is, at $6.6 million are necessary.
  So I think those cuts are well placed. I think if we are going to 
prepare for the maintenance, the operations, the training of service 
people, we have to make cuts where cuts can be made, and those programs 
are not, in my opinion, necessary to the defense of the Nation.
  As a second part of this rule, it grants to my ranking minority 
member, the gentleman from Wisconsin [Mr. Obey], an amendment in the 
nature of a substitute, and I supported this request at the Committee 
on Rules because I support his right to offer such an amendment, even 
though I do not agree with the substance of his amendment and do not 
understand why delegating to the Secretary of Defense the authority for 
line-item vetos over appropriations bills for the Defense Department is 
necessary.

                              {time}  1240

  Third, this rule specifically grants to the minority a motion to 
recommit with or without instructions. I support that right even though 
proponents of this motion to recommit do not want to pay, apparently do 
not want to pay for the defense of the Nation, even though they are the 
same people who wanted to send our troops to Haiti last year.
  So, Mr. Speaker, I may differ with my ranking member in his budget 
priorities, but I support this rule because it allows him to discuss 
his priorities and bring them to a vote.
  I thank the chairman of the Committee on Rules, the gentleman from 
New York [Mr. Solomon], and the distinguished member, the gentleman 
from California [Mr. Dreier], and all of the 
[[Page H1984]] members of the Committee on Rules for bringing forth 
this rule, and I support this rule.
  Mr. OBEY. Mr. Speaker, will the gentleman yield?
  Mr. LIVINGSTON. I am happy to yield to the gentleman from Wisconsin.
  Mr. OBEY. I thank the gentleman for yielding.
  Would the gentleman not grant that the package, even with the two 
bills fused, will add $644 million to the deficit on the outlay side 
over the next 5 years and $300 million in deficit in outlays for this 
year alone?
  Mr. LIVINGSTON. If the gentleman intends to deal only with outlays, 
it would be one of the first times, I think, that he has done so. As 
the distinguished member, former chairman of the Committee on 
Appropriations, knows, our committee deals with budget authority, we do 
not deal with outlays.
  As far as the payment of this package, we deal with budget authority.
  Mr. OBEY. If the gentleman would yield further, is it not true the 
deficit is measured only in outlays and not in budget authority, is 
that not true?
  Mr. LIVINGSTON. I would say to the gentleman that in the out years 
the budget authority pays for the bill, then ultimately the bill will 
be paid for.
  Mr. OBEY. Is it not true that the deficit is measured only in 
outlays?
  Mr. LIVINGSTON. The deficit is measured--ultimately is measured in 
outlays, and ultimately the outlays will follow the budget authority 
and does so by a surplus of $14 million.
  Mr. DREIER. Mr. Speaker, I urge strong support of this bipartisan 
bill, and I yield back the balance of my time.
  Mr. Speaker, I move the previous question on the resolution.
  The previous question was ordered.
  The SPEAKER pro tempore (Mr. Emerson). The question is on the 
resolution.
  The question was taken; and the Speaker pro tempore announced that 
the noes appeared to have it.
  Mr. DREIER. 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 282, 
nays 144, not voting 8, as follows:

                             [Roll No. 151]

                               YEAS--282

     Allard
     Andrews
     Archer
     Armey
     Bachus
     Baesler
     Baker (CA)
     Baker (LA)
     Ballenger
     Barcia
     Barr
     Barrett (NE)
     Barrett (WI)
     Bartlett
     Barton
     Bass
     Bateman
     Bereuter
     Berman
     Bilbray
     Bilirakis
     Bishop
     Bliley
     Blute
     Boehlert
     Boehner
     Bonilla
     Bono
     Brewster
     Browder
     Brownback
     Bryant (TN)
     Bunn
     Bunning
     Burr
     Burton
     Buyer
     Callahan
     Calvert
     Camp
     Canady
     Castle
     Chabot
     Chambliss
     Chenoweth
     Christensen
     Chrysler
     Clement
     Clinger
     Coble
     Coburn
     Collins (GA)
     Combest
     Condit
     Cooley
     Costello
     Cox
     Cramer
     Crane
     Crapo
     Cremeans
     Cubin
     Cunningham
     Davis
     de la Garza
     Deal
     DeLay
     Dellums
     Diaz-Balart
     Dickey
     Dicks
     Doggett
     Doolittle
     Dornan
     Doyle
     Dreier
     Duncan
     Dunn
     Ehrlich
     Emerson
     English
     Ensign
     Everett
     Ewing
     Farr
     Fawell
     Fazio
     Fields (TX)
     Flanagan
     Foley
     Forbes
     Fowler
     Fox
     Franks (CT)
     Franks (NJ)
     Frelinghuysen
     Frisa
     Funderburk
     Gallegly
     Ganske
     Gekas
     Geren
     Gilchrest
     Gillmor
     Gilman
     Goodlatte
     Goodling
     Goss
     Graham
     Greenwood
     Gunderson
     Gutknecht
     Hall (TX)
     Hamilton
     Hancock
     Hansen
     Hastert
     Hastings (WA)
     Hayes
     Hayworth
     Hefley
     Heineman
     Herger
     Hilleary
     Hobson
     Hoekstra
     Hoke
     Horn
     Hostettler
     Houghton
     Hunter
     Hutchinson
     Hyde
     Inglis
     Istook
     Johnson (CT)
     Johnson, Sam
     Jones
     Kasich
     Kelly
     Kim
     King
     Kingston
     Kleczka
     Klink
     Klug
     Knollenberg
     Kolbe
     LaHood
     Largent
     Latham
     LaTourette
     Laughlin
     Lazio
     Leach
     Lewis (CA)
     Lewis (KY)
     Lightfoot
     Lincoln
     Linder
     Lipinski
     Livingston
     LoBiondo
     Longley
     Lucas
     Manzullo
     Martini
     Mascara
     McCollum
     McCrery
     McDade
     McHale
     McHugh
     McInnis
     McIntosh
     McKeon
     Metcalf
     Meyers
     Mica
     Miller (FL)
     Minge
     Molinari
     Montgomery
     Moorhead
     Morella
     Murtha
     Myers
     Myrick
     Nethercutt
     Neumann
     Ney
     Norwood
     Nussle
     Obey
     Oxley
     Packard
     Parker
     Paxon
     Payne (VA)
     Petri
     Pombo
     Pomeroy
     Porter
     Portman
     Pryce
     Quillen
     Quinn
     Radanovich
     Rahall
     Ramstad
     Reed
     Regula
     Riggs
     Roberts
     Rogers
     Rohrabacher
     Ros-Lehtinen
     Roth
     Roukema
     Royce
     Sabo
     Salmon
     Sanford
     Saxton
     Scarborough
     Schaefer
     Schiff
     Seastrand
     Sensenbrenner
     Shadegg
     Shaw
     Shays
     Shuster
     Sisisky
     Skeen
     Skelton
     Smith (MI)
     Smith (NJ)
     Smith (TX)
     Smith (WA)
     Solomon
     Souder
     Spence
     Spratt
     Stark
     Stearns
     Stenholm
     Stockman
     Stump
     Stupak
     Talent
     Tate
     Tauzin
     Taylor (MS)
     Taylor (NC)
     Thomas
     Thornberry
     Thornton
     Tiahrt
     Torkildsen
     Torres
     Traficant
     Upton
     Vucanovich
     Waldholtz
     Walker
     Walsh
     Wamp
     Watts (OK)
     Waxman
     Weldon (FL)
     Weldon (PA)
     Weller
     White
     Whitfield
     Wicker
     Wilson
     Wolf
     Young (AK)
     Young (FL)
     Zeliff
     Zimmer

                               NAYS--144

     Abercrombie
     Ackerman
     Baldacci
     Becerra
     Beilenson
     Bentsen
     Bevill
     Bonior
     Borski
     Boucher
     Brown (CA)
     Brown (FL)
     Brown (OH)
     Bryant (TX)
     Cardin
     Chapman
     Clay
     Clayton
     Clyburn
     Coleman
     Collins (IL)
     Collins (MI)
     Conyers
     Coyne
     Danner
     DeFazio
     DeLauro
     Deutsch
     Dingell
     Dixon
     Dooley
     Durbin
     Edwards
     Engel
     Eshoo
     Evans
     Fields (LA)
     Filner
     Flake
     Foglietta
     Ford
     Frank (MA)
     Frost
     Furse
     Gejdenson
     Gephardt
     Gibbons
     Gordon
     Green
     Gutierrez
     Hall (OH)
     Harman
     Hastings (FL)
     Hefner
     Hilliard
     Hinchey
     Holden
     Jackson-Lee
     Jacobs
     Jefferson
     Johnson (SD)
     Johnson, E. B.
     Johnston
     Kanjorski
     Kaptur
     Kennedy (MA)
     Kennedy (RI)
     Kennelly
     Kildee
     LaFalce
     Lantos
     Levin
     Lewis (GA)
     Lofgren
     Lowey
     Luther
     Maloney
     Manton
     Markey
     Martinez
     Matsui
     McCarthy
     McDermott
     McKinney
     McNulty
     Meehan
     Menendez
     Mfume
     Miller (CA)
     Mineta
     Mink
     Moakley
     Mollohan
     Moran
     Nadler
     Neal
     Oberstar
     Olver
     Ortiz
     Orton
     Owens
     Pallone
     Pastor
     Payne (NJ)
     Pelosi
     Peterson (FL)
     Pickett
     Poshard
     Rangel
     Reynolds
     Richardson
     Rivers
     Roemer
     Rose
     Roybal-Allard
     Sanders
     Sawyer
     Schroeder
     Schumer
     Scott
     Serrano
     Skaggs
     Slaughter
     Stokes
     Studds
     Tanner
     Tejeda
     Thompson
     Thurman
     Torricelli
     Towns
     Tucker
     Velazquez
     Vento
     Visclosky
     Volkmer
     Ward
     Waters
     Watt (NC)
     Wise
     Woolsey
     Wyden
     Wynn
     Yates

                             NOT VOTING--8

     Ehlers
     Fattah
     Gonzalez
     Hoyer
     Meek
     Peterson (MN)
     Rush
     Williams

                              {time}  1300

  Mr. LUTHER changed his voted from ``yea'' to ``nay.''
  Mr. COSTELLO 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.
  

                          ____________________