[Congressional Record Volume 141, Number 64 (Thursday, April 6, 1995)]
[House]
[Pages H4344-H4356]
From the Congressional Record Online through the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
CONFERENCE REPORT ON H.R. 889, EMERGENCY SUPPLEMENTAL APPROPRIATIONS
AND RESCISSIONS FOR FISCAL YEAR 1995
Mr. DREIER. Mr. Speaker, by direction of the Committee on Rules, I
call up House Resolution 129 and ask for its immediate consideration.
The Clerk read the resolution, as follows:
H. Res 129
Resolved, That upon adoption of this resolution it shall be
in order to consider the conference report to accompany 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. All points
of order against the conference report and against its
consideration are waived. The conference report shall be
considered as read.
The SPEAKER pro tempore. The gentleman from California [Mr. Dreier]
is recognized for 1 hour.
Mr. DREIER. Mr. Speaker, for purposes of debate only, I yield the
customary 30 minutes to my very good friend, the gentleman from
Woodland Hills, CA [Mr. Beilenson], and, pending that, I yield myself
such time as I may consume. All time yielded is for the purpose of
debate only.
(Mr. DREIER asked and was given permission to revise and extend his
remarks, and include extraneous material.)
Mr. DREIER. Mr. Speaker, this rule responds to a national emergency
in defense readiness and training. The rule makes in order for
consideration the conference report to accompany 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.
The rule waives all points of order against the conference report and
its consideration, and the conference report is to be considered as
read.
The conference report requires a waiver of the 3-day layover rule.
This rule is being waived in order to permit the House to consider this
very vital measure as quickly as possible. The Secretary of Defense
recommended that this bill be completed by March 31, 1995, and since we
failed to do that, we are trying to move as expeditiously as possible
to get this done.
Mr. Speaker, yesterday was an historic day in the House of
Representatives. The new majority completed the final legislation
outlined in our Contract With America. The new majority proved that
Congress is finally led by legislators that keep their promises and
live up the commitments that they make. The new majority proved that
they value families ahead of Government, cutting taxes and ensuring
that every dollar returned to the people that earned it comes from
reduced Government spending, rather than adding to the deficit. And the
new majority made the Washington establishment lash out in anger
because we are doing something totally new: cutting taxes, reducing
government, and cutting the deficit.
People take note of major accomplishments, Mr. Speaker. They measure
Congress by high profile legislation, like the tax relief deficit
reduction bill that we passed late last night. However, I believe that
it is in the more mundane legislative accomplishments that we can
really measure the difference in the House of Representatives between
this year and past years. When I use the term ``mundane,'' I do not
mean in any way to criticize my very dear friend, the chairman of the
Committee on Appropriations.
The conference report on this emergency defense supplemental
appropriations bill is proof that we are making a real difference,
changing the long-ingrained culture of deficit spending in Congress.
For years those of us on this side of the aisle have said that we are
committed to fiscal responsibility, that the Federal Government must
live within its means. However, I can understand how people would want
to see some results before they actually are sure that that is the
case.
The Contract With America proved that we keep our promises, and this
conference report begins to establish the real record of fiscal
responsibility American taxpayers have demanded.
Our $4.7 trillion national debt is so massive it is almost
incomprehensive. How did we get there? You can probably get as many
reasons as there are Members of Congress. But I know that one reason is
that in the past the standard operating procedure for this House,
dealing with emergency spending, is to simply add to the deficit.
Well, Mr. Speaker, that era has come to an end. Things have changed.
The new leadership has said that we will find offsetting cuts for all
supplemental spending. While the big spenders said it could not be done
with a $1.5 trillion Federal budget, it can. We are doing it here, and
we will do it again with a disaster relief supplemental appropriations
bill. In fact, it is now the only way for us to meet emergencies.
Make no mistake, H.R. 889 makes supplemental appropriations of a
truly emergency nature. It provides $3.04 billion in readiness funds.
Those defense funds are offset with $2.5 billion in defense
rescissions, $775 million in nondefense rescissions, and $142 million
in foreign assistance rescissions.
Two months ago some said that the House's original nondefense
rescissions were going nowhere. They said the Senate would not even
consider them. I would note, Mr. Speaker, that instead of failure, the
House got much of what it wanted, and this bill cuts $746 million more
than it spends. In other words, we are again doing the people's
business and making a down payment on balancing the budget.
Mr. Speaker, the real changes in Congress are at least as evident
when we send a bill like this to the President as when we cut taxes and
cut spending to pay for it. I urge all of my colleagues to support this
very fair rule and permit the House to consider this conference report.
There is a critical national security need that must be met, and H.R.
889 meets it.
Mr. Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.
Mr. BEILENSON. Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentleman from California for
yielding to me. I yield myself such time as I may consume.
Mr. Speaker, over the past few years this country has called on the
men and women of our armed services to perform duties ranging from
humanitarian assistance in Somalia to all out war in Iraq. These duties
were performed superbly and with honor. There is not one of us here
today who can feel anything but pride for the job our Armed Forces have
done in Africa, the Middle East, the Balkans, or in the Caribbean.
I would like to commend the conferees for their work with regard to
the defense side of the conference report. While the increases in
defense spending are not fully offset by direct defense cuts, this bill
is certainly an improvement over the bill which the House sent to
conference just a few weeks ago.
[[Page H4345]] The bill still relies on some nondefense cuts to
offset the additional defense spending. Those offsets include cuts of
$200 million from environmental cleanup at the Department of Energy
sites and $142 million in foreign assistance, as well as major cuts in
the technology reinvestment program, the defense conversion grants that
have been so important to companies in areas that have experienced
significant losses of defense and aerospace jobs.
We would like to raise some additional concerns with a number of
other domestic rescissions in the conference report which are not
needed to offset defense spending. A few examples of those cuts are $35
million for student loans under the Pell Grant Program, $200 million
for training and employment services, and $200 million for clean coal
technology.
Also, Mr. Speaker, the conference report effectively places a hold on
any endangered species listing and critical habitat designations for
the remainder of the year. We believe that the authorizing committee
and not the Committee on Appropriations is the proper place to address
this far-reaching and very critical issue.
Finally, Mr. Speaker, the rules does not allow separate votes on any
of the amendments in disagreement. The conference report contains items
which the House has not had the opportunity to consider before today,
and we believe, Mr. Speaker, that it is only fair that some of these
issues be voted on separately.
Mr. Speaker, even though we have many reservations about the
conference report, we support the rule because it is absolutely
necessary that we have this bill on the President's desk as soon as
possible.
Mr. DREIER. Mr. Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.
Mr. BEILENSON. Mr. Speaker, I have no further requests for time, and
I yield back the balance of my time.
Mr. DREIER. Mr. Speaker, I would simply urge support of this very
important first step toward dealing with the deficit, and at the same
time dealing with emergency spending, and again I have to apologize not
only to the chairman of the Committee on Appropriations for in any way
leading one to believe that this might be a mundane measure, but also
the chairman of the Subcommittee on Defense Appropriations, Mr. Young,
who has now joined us, and say that I believe this is extraordinarily
important. I hope we can immediately report out this rule.
Mr. Speaker, I yield back the balance of my time, and I move the
previous question on the resolution.
The previous question was ordered.
The resolution was agreed to.
A motion to reconsider was laid on the table.
{time} 1100
Mr. LIVINGSTON. Mr. Speaker, pursuant to House Resolution 129, I call
up the conference report on 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 Clerk read the title of the bill.
The SPEAKER pro tempore (Mr. Inglis of South Carolina). Pursuant to
House Resolution 129, the conference report is considered as having
been read.
(For conference report and statement, see proceedings of the House of
Wednesday, April 5, 1995, at page H4319.)
The SPEAKER pro tempore. The gentleman from Louisiana [Mr.
Livingston] will be recognized for 30 minutes, and the gentleman from
Wisconsin [Mr. Obey] will be recognized for 30 minutes.
The Chair recognizes the gentleman from Louisiana [Mr. Livingston].
general leave
Mr. LIVINGSTON. Mr. Speaker, I ask unanimous consent that all Members
may have 5 legislative days in which to revise and extend their remarks
on the conference report to accompany H.R. 889, and that I may include
tabular and extraneous material.
The SPEAKER pro tempore. Is there objection to the request of the
gentleman from Louisiana?
There was not objection.
Mr. LIVINGSTON. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may
consume.
(Mr. LIVINGSTON asked and was given permission to revise and extend
his remarks.)
Mr. LIVINGSTON. Mr. Speaker, I am very pleased to bring to the House
what I believe to be an extraordinary--and I say to the gentleman from
the Rules Committee [Mr. Dreier], nonmundane conference report to
accompany H.R. 889, making emergency supplemental appropriations for
the Department of Defense and rescinding additional budget authority.
We need to adopt the conference report so that we can respond quickly
to what we all acknowledge is an emergency in funding readiness
operations.
First, I want to acknowledge the valiant efforts of the distinguished
chairman of the Subcommittee on National Security, the gentleman from
Florida, [Mr. Young] and all of the members of that subcommittee, as
well as all of the subcommittee chairmen who participated in the
conference. They have worked diligently, along with the Members of the
other body, to confect this conference agreement and have it ready
today before the recess begins.
It was not an easy conference, but I think that everyone worked so
hard that we ended up with an extremely valuable product which will not
only provide needed assistance and support to the young men and women
in uniform in our armed services but ultimately will maintain the
national security of this country.
Mr. Speaker, this bill contains $3,041,700,000 in new budget
authority for the Department of Defense. All of this budget authority
is paid for, mostly from other less critical defense programs. We
offset $2,259,956,000 from the Defense Department. We provide
$442,014,000 in offsets from defense-related sources, including foreign
operations, nuclear facility cleanup, and military construction
activities. Also, we include burden-sharing receipts totaling $360
million that provide additional offsets. In total, we have provided a
net reduction in defense and defense-related activities of $20,870,000.
The bill also provides other cuts totaling $775,067,000 in nondefense
budget rescissions., Taken in total, the bill provides a net budget
authority reduction of $746,067,000. Let me repeat that. This bill has
a net budget authority reduction of $746 million plus.
I will include for the Record a table detailing these specific
reductions.
Mr. Speaker, we had a difficult conference on what I had hoped would
be a not-too-difficult bill. But I would ask that the Members consider
the following points as they consider this conference report:
The bill is more than offset in budget authority, as I have
indicated, by nearly three-quarters of $1 billion.
It meets Secretary of Defense Perry's needs to replenish readiness
accounts depleted by humanitarian peacekeeping operations.
It also carries the emergency designation for funding that Secretary
Perry has requested. And it makes a modest contribution to our
readiness needs.
Mr. Speaker, in addition to the appropriations mentioned, the
agreement includes language requiring the Secretary of the Treasury to
submit reports to the Congress each month concerning our loans and our
currency agreements with Mexico.
It also requires that certifications be made by the President to the
Congress on that very important issue.
Mr. Speaker, time is of the essence in passing this measure. We need
to have this bill clear Congress before we leave for the recess to
avoid a major disruption in our readiness activities. Democrats and
Republicans alike have worked hard in a bipartisan, bicameral spirit to
approve this conference report in time for our departure. I urge all
Members to vote for this agreement.
At this point in the Record I would also like to insert a table
reflecting the details of the conference. It is a very important
conference report. Again, I urge its adoption.
[[Page H4346]] TH06AP95.000
[[Page H4347]] TH06AP95.001
[[Page H4348]] TH06AP95.002
[[Page H4349]] TH06AP95.003
[[Page H4350]]
Mr. Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.
Mr. OBEY. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself 6 minutes.
Mr. Speaker, when this bill originally left the House, I voted
against it for a number of reasons. First of all, because it took money
from domestic programs to pay for some of the additional Pentagon
spending in the bill.
Second, the bill added to the deficit. At the time the bill left the
House, the committee indicated that even though the outlays were not in
balance, that in fact the bill was balanced in terms of budget
authority. But after the bill passed the House, the committee produced
a table, I did not produce that table, the committee produced a table,
which indicated that in fact the bill, as it left the House, added $186
million in budget authority to the deficit and it added $250 million in
outlay spending to the deficit in the first year and $650 million to
the deficit in the out years.
I thought that was a very important reason to object to the bill.
When we went to conference with the Senate, I offered a motion to
instruct conferees. And essentially at that time what I said is that I
was willing to overlook, though I was not enthusiastic about the idea,
I was willing to overlook the fact that some domestic-related programs
were used to finance some of the Pentagon spending in the bill,
provided that the bill, in fact, would be paid for. So we asked the
conferees to produce a bill which was, in fact, paid for.
In conference, I did not sign the conference report for a number of
reasons.
First of all, because in the nondefense portion of this bill, it
retains spending for an item which was strongly insisted on in the
Senate, which begins a new construction program in the area of
education. I, frankly, think it is silly and shortsighted and stupid,
even though that program in and of itself may be useful, for us to
spend money on that program which we do not have at the very same time
that we are cutting money from existing education programs.
Second, I wanted to register my objection to the fact that the
committee continues to insist that we spend $14 million in my district
which I do not want to spend. I do not know of another situation in the
Congress where you have both U.S. Senators and the Member of the House
representing a specific district asking that a project be canceled in
our district. That is what we are asking to do. Yet the Congress, in
what I regard as a typical lap dog puppy situation, again rolled over
and decided to give the Navy the money for its toy again.
Third, I do not like the fact that this is treated as an emergency
and, therefore, does not count added defense spending in out years
against the budget caps. In fact, it should, if we are serious about
deficit reduction.
And fourth, I was trying to help the administration on the issue of
Jordan because the administration was asking for help in seeing to it
that the Jordan debt provision, which in the Senate was originally
contained in this bill, not be moved from this bill to the $17 billion
rescission bill which we have sent to the Senate.
But on that score, I would say that, in light of the administration's
negotiations which they conducted last night in the Senate, without
consultation on the side so far as I know, it appears to me that the
White House does not mind being jerked around on the issue of Jordan.
It would appear to me the White House does not mind being blackmailed
on the issue of Jordan. And so if they do not care, why should I?
So what I am going to do on the floor, now that I have registered my
concern on the individual points, is to support this conference report,
because in essence, it does what we asked them to do in the motion to
instruct, and it does what the bill did not do when it originally left
the House, which is to largely offset the spending with cuts, so it
does remain significantly deficit neutral.
So I think that in comparison to the House-passed package, this is
much more preferable. Having registered my concerns on the details, I
will, in the interest of comity and the interest of getting things
done, recognize the progress that was made in the conference report and
support the bill as it is reported.
Mr. LIVINGSTON. Mr. Speaker, will the gentleman yield?
Mr. OBEY. I yield to the gentleman from Louisiana.
Mr. LIVINGSTON. Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentleman for yielding to
me. Certainly I will reciprocate in the event that we run short of
time, although I do not think that we will. I would just like to point
out that insofar as the gentleman's objections to the educational
infrastructure project are concerned, the gentleman from Louisiana and
the gentleman from Illinois [Mr. Porter], who chairs the subcommittee
on which the gentleman is the ranking minority member, totally agree
with the gentleman from Wisconsin that that program is wasteful,
inefficient, and almost constitutes a brand new entitlement for which
the taxpayer to the U.S. Federal Government cannot possibly be expected
to ultimately pay.
Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume.
I say further to the gentleman that the fact is that the other body
pressed very hard for this program, notwithstanding the prognosis that
in future legislative activities before this body, that this program
will not be looked upon kindly. Yet, it was a compromise. It was an
effort to reach an accommodation, at least temporarily, so this very
important bill could go forward. Unfortunately, the whole appropriation
was not stricken. But I totally share the sentiment of the gentleman
and want to assure him that it was only agreed to for the purposes of
comity with the other body in order to conclude the entire conference.
Mr. OBEY. Mr. Speaker, will the gentleman yield?
Mr. LIVINGSTON. I yield to the gentleman from Wisconsin.
Mr. OBEY. Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentleman for his statement, and I
would say that I certainly recognize the value of the program that the
Senate is trying to support, but it just seems to me that the worst
thing one can do in a situation of tight budgets is to unfairly raise
people's expectations about the ability of the Federal Government to
fund yet another program when, in fact, we are making substantial
reductions in programs that now do some very good things for a lot of
people who need help.
{time} 1115
I share the gentleman's view on that point, and would simply observe
that for all of the Members who voted for the motion to instruct,
demanding that conferees come back with a bill which is essentially
budget neutral and does not add to the deficit, we won our point, and I
think that deserves recognition on our part on the conference report.
Mr. LIVINGSTON. Reclaiming my time, Mr. Speaker, in further response
to the gentleman, I agree with his points. I would add, though, that
the administration made a commitment to Jordan that there would be
three tranches in response to the President's agreement to forgive
Jordanian debt; that one would be expected to be provided in 1995, one
in 1996, and one in 1997.
We are currently dealing with a conference agreement on a
supplemental and a rescission of 1995 appropriations. We are going to
deal with another one, another 1995 supplemental and rescission
conference agreement in the coming weeks. We will deal with this relief
in that agreement. The fact is that the three tranches for Jordanian
aid will be dealt with in 1995, not in 1996 or 1997, for the entire
total balance of the commitment that the President has made to Jordan.
If that is jerking the administration around, I think they would
think it is a good way to do it, from their point of view.
Mr. Speaker, I am delighted to yield 5 minutes to the gentleman from
Florida [Mr. Young], the very hard-working, diligent, and most
distinguished chairman of the Subcommittee on National Security of the
Committee on Appropriations.
Mr. YOUNG of Florida. Mr. Speaker, I thank the distinguished
gentleman from Louisiana for yielding time to me.
Mr. Speaker, I do not think it is necessary to use all of the time we
have allocated today. I did want to pay a special tribute to my
chairman, the gentleman from Louisiana [Mr. Livingston], because as we
proceeded with
[[Page H4351]] this supplemental he was there every step of the way in
strong support of what we were doing.
I have to admit, after having served in the minority for so many
years, to be the chairman of the subcommittee that brought out the
first appropriation bill of this new Congress was gratifying, and it
was a partnership effort. The gentleman from Pennsylvania [Mr. Murtha],
the former chairman of the subcommittee, could not have been a stronger
supporter, and I think we both felt really good when the subcommittee
and the full committee agreed to the recommendation we made on how to
deal with this emergency supplemental. We moved it even ahead of the
request from the administration, because we recognized the emergency
and the time element.
I would also want to say that, in addition to the Members who were so
helpful and so supportive, I never saw a staff work as many hours,
attend as many meetings, draw up as many papers and make as many
comparisons on so many different ideas as I saw in this particular
exercise. I pay tribute to that staff, because even after we would go
home at 10 or 11 o'clock at night, they were still here after we left,
and they were here before we got back the next morning.
Mr. Speaker, I want to take just a couple of minutes to say that we
are facing not just a supplemental issue today but we are facing a real
concern about the readiness of our forces and the ability to defend our
national interest.
For the last 10 years we have experienced a reduction, a reduction in
the amount of funding made available to our national defense
establishment for pay for forces, for uniforms, for training, for
modernization of equipment. We have reduced that budget for the last 10
years. The budget request that we deal with this year would be the 11th
reduction.
The gentleman from Pennsylvania [Mr. Murtha] and I have discussed
this on a number of occasions, we would not be able to do today what we
did in Desert Storm just a few short years ago, because of the
tremendous reductions. We have to face up to and recognize that the
many contingencies that are not planned for, that are not funded, that
we have to develop some way to deal with these contingencies.
If the President is going to deploy forces around the world on an
unplanned contingency, he ought to consult with the Congress of the
United States, so we can work together not only in devising the plan to
handle the deployment and the mission, but to determine how we are
going to pay for it before we get into a crisis situation like we face
today.
If we do not pass this supplemental today, the Navy is prepared to
tie up ships within the next couple of weeks. The Air Force and the
Navy both are prepared to ground airplanes; not prepared to, they would
be forced to, because the money for those purposes has already been
spent for these contingencies.
Mr. Speaker, one other issue, Haiti. There was a strong difference of
opinion in this House whether or not we should even have gone to Haiti
to return Aristide to office. Nevertheless, it happened. Our troops
performed almost flawlessly. We should be so extremely proud of the way
that they did perform in Haiti.
However, Haiti was not a military threat to our Nation, not a
security threat to our Nation, and the Department of Defense should not
have to pay the bill for the Haiti operation. It should come from
another account, whether it is the State Department or the foreign aid
account. It should not come out of the hide of the national defense
establishment that is already suffering from 10 years of funding
reductions.
Mr. Speaker, I hope Members will pay close attention, because the
gentleman from South Carolina [Mr. Spence], the distinguished chairman
of the Committee on Armed Services, which we now call the Committee on
National Security, and I have met on many occasions since the beginning
of this Congress. We have reached an agreement that any projects, any
items that are going to be authorized in their bill or appropriated by
our appropriations subcommittee had better have a national defense
application.
We are not going to use the national defense budget for a slush fund
for anyone. We are going to be very careful not to use the national
defense funding for political projects, whatever they might be.
Whatever is funded and authorized in this Congress for national defense
is going to be used for national defense.
Mr. Speaker, I want to thank my friend, the gentleman from Wisconsin
[Mr. Obey], for the stature that he displays in being willing to
support this legislation today, although he opposed it in the
beginning. It is somewhat different than it was in the beginning. I
appreciate all the support from the gentleman from Wisconsin and his
staff, all of the Members of the House and our subcommittee.
Mr. Speaker, as I said earlier, the Department of Defense is facing a
critical shortfall in its funding for military readiness and training--
because the funds we provided last year for these activities have been
siphoned off, and used to pay for the large number of contingency
operations that our Armed Forces have been involved in since last fall.
Haiti, Bosnia, the Middle East, refugee relief at Guantanamo Bay,
Korea, Somalia. All these operations, the DOD has been forced to pay
for out of hide--from funds intended for training and readiness in the
second half of the current fiscal year.
The second half of the fiscal year began last Saturday, Mr. Speaker--
and if we do not act to replenish the DOD's accounts, beginning next
week we will start to see the Pentagon ordering cutbacks in all of the
military services.
The Joint Chiefs of Staff have recommended that without this
supplemental, in April they will have to order the Air Force to cut
flying hours by 25 percent; the Navy will have to cancel scheduled
maintenance on two aircraft carriers; the Marines will have to cancel
exercises and cut operating forces budgets by 20 percent; and the Army
will have to cut tank training 25 percent and scrub preparations for
exercises at the National Training Center in California.
That is just what will happen in April. It will get worse as the year
goes on.
That is why we have to act--and why we have brought back to the House
this emergency supplemental for the DOD which, while it is not perfect,
provides the only way we can avoid what will be a disaster for military
readiness.
This bill provides just over $3 billion in readiness funding for the
military--and it not only covers the costs of the contingency
operations I just mentioned but also provides money to fully finance
the military pay raise for 1995, as well as a $250 million shortfall in
pay accounts for our forces stationed overseas, brought on by the drop
of the dollar.
And at the same time we provide this emergency funding, we have more
than fully offset these costs--by recommending over $3.8 billion worth
of rescissions and offsets. As a result, even with the funding for the
DOD, this bill will reduce current budget authority by over $740
million dollars.
Now, I have to admit I am not entirely comfortable with having to
totally offset an emergency supplemental for our military. Our
committee has never done this before; and we have to realize that
depending on the type of military actions our forces may have to carry
out, it may be impossile to totally offset Defense supplementals in the
future. But in this bill we have done so.
I must also admit that I am not entirely pleased with how we finally
offset this bill. After a long and hard negotiation with the other
body, we ended up agreeing to taking nearly $2.4 billion in rescissions
out of other Defense accounts--$2.26 billion from programs under the
National Security subcommittee, and another $100 million from military
construction. On top of this, $200 million is coming from the defense-
related accounts in the Department of Energy.
In conference, we were basically asked to rob Peter to pay Paul--take
money out of other Defense accounts to pay for Defense readiness. We
did our best to recommend Defense offsets which were less critical,
less important--but the fact remains, the Defense budget has been cut
for 10 straight years. There are no easy cuts left. And we had a very
difficult time settling with the Senate which Defense accounts were
important, and which ones were not.
None of this was easy for the House conferees--but we were left with
no choice. And I want to thank Chairman Vucanovich and Chairman Myers
for helping with offsets, because without these we could not have
gotten an agreement before the recess.
We would not be in this situation if the President would have come to
the Congress and asked for approval of these operations as well as the
needed money in advance. With the exception of the deployments to the
Middle East and Korea, we are not talking about emergency military
operations here. We are
[[Page H4352]] talking about peacekeeping, and humanitarian
operations--things that are not the core mission of the Department of
Defense.
That is one thing we were all able to agree upon in our conference--
that the President just cannot keep ordering these operations and then
expect us to come up with the money afterwards. We just can not keep
doing this. We will destroy military readiness and other critical
defense programs. We lay all this out in the statement of managers. And
I know, based on how all of us in the conference felt--Chairman
Livingston, Senators Hatfield, Byrd, Stevens, and Inouye; and certainly
myself and the gentleman from Pennsylvania, Mr. Murtha--that if the
President does not do something to correct this then we will come back
in the 1996 appropriations bills with some further recommendations of
our own.
So, this is not a perfect agreement, but it is one that we have to
pass. And I want to thank Bob Livingston and the ranking member of our
subcommittee, Jack Murtha, as well as our Senate counterparts for their
efforts to bring this emergency bill back to the House before we leave
this week. This is a good bill, and one that is absolutely essential. I
urge your support.
Mr. OBEY. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself 4 minutes.
Mr. Speaker, I would simply like to make one additional point on the
Jordan issue, in light of the comments made by the chairman. Let me put
it this way, Mr. Speaker: I can recall when a previous President,
President Bush, asked for bipartisan help to see to it that they could
in fact move events forward in the Middle East by withholding funds for
the Israel loan guarantee.
That was not a popular position for President Bush to take in the
Congress. At that time I supported President Bush strongly, because I
thought that unless those loan guarantees were held up, we would never
see a posture on the part of the Israeli Government with respect to the
settlements issue that was consistent with American foreign policy.
I would compare that bipartisan support of President Bush with the
quite different approach taken by the other body, and especially the
majority party in the other body on the issue of Jordan. We now have
this President asking for help to again move the peace process forward
by funding the commitment that the President made to Jordan when they
agreed to follow along in this round on the peace process. But instead,
what has happened is that we have had an insistence from the majority
leader in the other body that funding for Jordan be taken out of this
bill, where it belongs, and put into what is essentially a domestic
rescission bill.
What that will mean is that any Member who votes for that rescission
bill will be asked to make cuts in domestic programs for kids and for
seniors in order to fund debt relief for Jordan. I do not think that is
a very smart thing to do tactically, I do not think that is the right
thing to do substantively. It seems to me if we are going to provide
that action for Jordan, that it belongs in this bill and it should be
offset in this bill, because I am tired of seeing this Government make
foreign policy decisions that wind up having domestic consequences that
are negative for our constituents.
Another example would be, for instance, the situation which we find
ourselves in with respect to refugees, where the Federal Government
will make agreements allowing refugees into this country, and then they
will walk away from the obligation to support the financing of those
refugees, and turn the obligation for that over to State and local
governments.
I do not think that is legitimate. I think foreign policy issues
should be dealt with in foreign policy bills. That is why Jordan
belongs in this bill. That is why Jordan belongs in this bill, not the
other bill.
However, I find it quaint that the administration asked a bipartisan
group of people to go up to the other end of Pennsylvania Avenue twice
on last Thursday to talk about the necessity to keep Jordan funding in
this bill, rather than moving it over to the other bill, and then we
find out that without any notice whatsoever to anybody on this side of
the Capitol, the administration decides, after all, they are going to
acquiesce in putting it in the other bill.
That is why I say that the administration apparently does not mind
being jerked around. I do. It seems to me the next time the
administration asks someone in the Congress to defend their position on
a foreign policy issue in the Congress, it would be nice to know that
we could find the administration where they were the last time we
talked to them.
Mr. LIVINGSTON. Mr. Speaker, I will let the gentleman's comments
stand where they are, and I am delighted to yield 2 minutes to the
gentlewoman from Nevada [Mrs. Vucanovich], the distinguished chairwoman
of the Subcommittee on Military Construction of the Committee on
Appropriations.
(Mrs. VUCANOVICH asked and was given permission to revise and extend
her remarks.)
Mrs. VUCANOVICH. Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentleman for yielding time
to me.
Mr. Speaker, I rise to speak regarding the conference agreement on
Senate amendment numbered 5, the Military Construction Subcommittee's
portion of the bill H.R. 889, as well as action to date on the bill
H.R. 1158.
As these two bills proceeded through the House, no rescissions were
proposed for military construction.
The Senate took an opposing view. On H.R. 889, the Senate imposed a
contingent rescission based on the current round of base closure, and
this contingent rescission may have reached a total of $150 million. On
H.R. 1158, the Senate imposed additional rescissions totaling $230.8
million. In the House view, these rescissions were ill-advised and
unnecessary at this time.
In conference action on H.R. 889, the House very reluctantly agreed
to rescissions totaling $100.6 million, and these specific rescissions
are explained in detail in the statement of the managers accompanying
the conference report. More importantly, the conferees agreed that all
rescissions proposed by the Senate in both bills would be addressed in
the conference agreement on the bill H.R. 889. Therefore, no
rescissions will be recommended for military construction in final
action on H.R. 1158.
Mr. OBEY. Mr. Speaker, I yield 3 minutes to the gentlewoman from Ohio
[Ms. Kaptur].
Ms. KAPTUR. Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentleman for yielding time to
me.
Mr. Speaker, I wish to bring to the Members' attention a title that
is a part of this Defense supplemental bill, title IV, entitled ``The
Mexican Debt Disclosure Act of 1995,'' a measure that was attached in
the Senate and then agreed to by the conferees.
Let me mention also, Mr. Speaker, that as the ranking member on our
side has indicated, it has been very difficult to get the $3.1 billion
identified in the overall defense supplemental bill to take care of
costs for Haiti, for Bosnia, for Somalia. I might mention $3.1 billion.
Title IV, which deals with Mexico, talks about $20 billion. Of
course, that is money that has not been voted on by the Members of this
body, because we have not been permitted a vote by our own leadership.
We have been thwarted at every turn.
Now we are faced with a vote on a defense supplemental that has a
title that pushes us a little bit further toward getting some
additional information from the Clinton administration. I have to say
that it is a step in the right direction, but it is certainly not what
we have been asking for in this body.
{time} 1130
A little recent history here. Members will remember that we were
ruled against, those of us who wanted a clean vote on the question of
whether we should be appropriating dollars to support the bailout in
Mexico. The Speaker ruled against us. We were not allowed an open
debate a few weeks ago. Then there was a vote in the Republican
conference about a week ago, 2 to 1 against getting a vote here, a
clean vote on the floor on the question of these credits and loan
guarantees being extended to Mexico. Now the only item we were able to
get passed was a resolution that had broad bipartisan support here,
House Resolution 80, which we had to use a special procedure to
disgorge it from committee and it essentially only asked the
administration for information which was supposed to be here by March
15 and which is not here. Only parts of it are here.
Now the cleanest measure that we could get on this floor is not this
title
[[Page H4353]] IV of this bill but rather Discharge Petition 2 which
sits at the desk there that would allow us a clean vote on the issue of
how many dollars if any should be extended further to Mexico to help
bail out that tragic situation down there.
I want to point out to the Members, this title does exist in this
bill. It is a serious title. Essentially what it says is that no money,
loan credit guarantee or arrangement through the Exchange Stabilization
Fund at the Treasury or the Federal Reserve can be extended unless the
President of the United States has provided us with every single
document that we have asked for in our resolution of inquiry.
I can say based on the research we have done in our office, again
this information was to have been here by March 15. There are big holes
in what the administration has failed to tell us, including the
conditions that were placed on the bailout by members of the investment
community, the relationships to the Bank for International Settlement
and the other international funds involved in this bailout, and private
phone conversation notes between the Government of the United States
and Mexico.
I just have to say that this is another weak attempt to try to get
some vote here in the Congress on a massive amount of money that is
being extended by the people of the United States.
Mr. Speaker, I have to say that it is not comfortable to be a Member
of this body and not be allowed a full debate on a matter that is 7
times as large as the base dollar funding in this defense supplemental.
This has been an insiders' deal from the beginning. I think that the
Members should read the language of title IV carefully. We have a right
to debate this amount of money going to another country. We are tied in
knots over $3.1 billion of money that needs to be paid to restore the
amount in our readiness accounts. Why is it so difficult to get a full
debate in the Congress of the United States when we have a new form of
back-door foreign assistance that has been allowed to Mexico setting an
incredible precedent that we will have to account for later?
I just have to say that this amendment that was added to this bill
gets us to maybe second base but it does not get us the full and open
debate and the kind of oversight that we need in this body on the
amount of money that is now being extended to not just back up the
Government of Mexico but the Mexican banking system. This is extremely
serious. Title IV, an important step perhaps, gets us to second base,
not the home run that we really need in order to gain proper oversight
over this massive expenditure of our tax dollars.
Mr. LIVINGSTON. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself 1 minute to respond to
the gentlewoman and say that had it not been for the Appropriations
Committee, the gentlewoman would not have an opportunity to discuss
this issue at all. We have developed a compromise with the Senate on
this bill. We have compelled the White House to provide documentation
which has not been forthcoming to date despite a resolution passed by
this House on March 1. We are doing our best to get to the bottom of
the issue and try to provide as much light on the decision process on
the issue of providing aid to Mexico as we possibly can. This is a good
first step. There may be others. The gentlewoman should in fact be
pleased that we have gone as far as we have.
Ms. KAPTUR. Mr. Speaker, would the gentleman yield for three
questions?
Mr. LIVINGSTON. To the extent I have any more time on the minute, I
would be happy to yield to the gentlewoman from Ohio.
Ms. KAPTUR. I would just ask the gentleman, is it the gentleman's
understanding that in title IV that if passed it certifies that the
President--
The SPEAKER pro tempore (Mr. Hastings of Washington). The time of the
gentleman from Louisiana [Mr. Livingston] has expired.
Mr. OBEY. Mr. Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the gentlewoman from Ohio
[Ms. Kaptur].
Ms. KAPTUR. I thank the gentleman for yielding me the time.
Mr. Speaker, I would like to know whether if we vote for this, we
assure ourselves that until the President certifies that without
exception every requested document has been turned over to Congress,
all further Mexican bailout funds through the ESF, the Federal Reserve
Board or any other fund with which the United States is associated in
the pipeline are halted.
Mr. LIVINGSTON. If the gentlewoman would yield, I would say that
certainly the White House counsel is going to be examining this
provision carefully, but it is the gentleman's understanding that from
the point of passage of the bill that the White House, or that the
administration has 10 days to sign the bill. If in fact they have not
provided the documentation at the end of the 10 days, there will be a
period of time during which there shall be no Mexican assistance.
However, if the documentation is provided prior to that time, then
there is no lapse at all.
Mr. BURTON of Indiana. If the gentlewoman would yield, I think the
gentleman the chairman is correct with one possible exception. I want
to make sure this is well understood. After the President signs the
bill, the time starts. Then the requirement starts. Not after we pass
it here in the House. It is after the President signs it, I believe,
which could be as late as the 24th or 25th of this month.
Ms. KAPTUR. This leads to my second question. Then it is my
understanding that under the legislation the President would not have
to provide the documentation until the last day of the first month
after which this legislation is passed, which would mean the end of
May; is that correct?
During which time billions more could flow out of that fund. Am I
correct in my understanding?
Mr. LIVINGSTON. If the gentlewoman would yield to me, that is not my
understanding. I think that the time limits are much shorter than that.
Mr. BURTON of Indiana. Mr. Speaker, will the gentlewoman yield?
Ms. KAPTUR. I yield to the gentleman from Indiana.
Mr. BURTON of Indiana. Regarding the certification, it said the funds
stop unless and until the President submits the appropriate documents.
Until we get the certification, the money is cut off, so it would be
around the 24th or 25th of this month.
Mr. OBEY. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself 1 minute.
Mr. Speaker, I would simply suggest that I do not think it is
particularly constructive for individual Members of Congress to try to
write a record of legislative intent when in fact the record that is
being written is probably not accurate nor legitimate.
I do not believe, for instance, that any Member of the House who is
not a member of the conference can really assure the House about
anything with respect to what that language means. I certainly do not
necessarily subscribe to the interpretation of the gentleman from
Indiana since he was not a member of the conference and cannot possibly
have an understanding of what the agreement was that was reached by
persons who were in the room.
Ms. KAPTUR. If the gentleman would be kind enough to yield, I would
just like to read into the Record the actual language in title IV which
says that the reports will be provided beginning on the last day of the
first month which begins after the date of enactment, which would be
the end of May.
Mr. LIVINGSTON. Mr. Speaker, I yield 5 minutes to the distinguished
gentleman from California [Mr. Cunningham], a member of the Committee
on National Security.
Mr. CUNNINGHAM. Mr. Speaker, I would say to the gentleman from
Wisconsin [Mr. Obey] and the last speakers, that many of us on this
side of the aisle agree that when he talked about Jordan, King Hussein,
we all witnessed the King up here with good intentions, but he, in
fact, does not have control of Jordan and with the Palestinians, this
Member personally feels that we are dumping money down a rat hole.
I think we have also taken a look and many Members on this side of
the aisle want an up-or-down vote on Mexico, the bailout. I think that
it is going to be a problem. I do not know what the deal is with the
support of President Clinton on the issue, but many of us would like to
halt the money going to Mexico, because I think again it is money going
down a rat hole.
I also agree with the gentleman from Wisconsin [Mr. Obey] that when
we are
[[Page H4354]] looking at a balanced budget and we are sending money to
Mexico, we are sending money to Jordan and we have domestic problems
here in this country and we also have military readiness problems, that
we have got to change our modus operandi on both sides of the aisle and
the administration as well.
But why is this particular issue that we are talking about today
important? Military readiness, and I quote from testimony in the
Committee on National Security, that we are near buffet condition when
it comes to national security, and near buffet is the condition in
which an airplane goes into an out-of-control spin. That condition has
been created much because of the operations of this body. Our op tempo
today, operation tempo, is higher than it was during Desert Storm or
Vietnam. But yet our military has had dollars cut out of it not only in
a $177 billion defense cut but from not funding BRAC, from all the
operations that were in Somalia, Haiti, and so on.
In Somalia, we testified, when there was an extension of Somalia that
it was going to cost billions of dollars, and that was going to come
out of military readiness, time and training.
This is an attempt to get a little portion of that money back. In the
meantime, we have gone a year and a half without allotting the training
in the military. I just got through with a briefing of the military.
Our F-18's, C-10's, our F-15's, our AWACS in Bosnia and these other
expenditures are killing the flight time left on those airframes. At
the same time, we have air wings back in the States that are not
flying. Top Gun did not fly against its class because it did not have
enough fuel or parts because of the Somalia, the Haiti, the Bosnia
expeditions. This is critical.
If we take a look at the extension of Somalia, we said it was going
to cost billions of dollars. Then if we take a look at the retreat from
Somalia that we just went through, General Aideed is still there, and
it cost us over 100 Rangers that were killed in Somalia at great cost
to this country. When we talk about domestic programs, when we talk
about military readiness, it was not Members on this side of the aisle
that made the decision to extend Somalia that cost lives and billions
of dollars.
Haiti is another case. We put into position a madman in Haiti. I ask
the Speaker, if we pulled out of Haiti today, what would be the
condition? Do Members remember Papa Doc and Baby Doc? It would be a
total turmoil there. That has cost us billions of dollars. We are
paying for those military forces, military, the United States is. That
is wrong, against our own military defense. Again, when we pull out of
there, it is going to go back just like it has, and we could have left
it there for another 100 years and it would not have been a national
security.
The President is saying, what a great victory. Pull out of there and
see what kind of victory we have.
Mr. Speaker, I would also like to take a look at the different costs.
There are many on the other side of the aisle that would depreciate our
readiness and our capability in national defense and our military. But
we are asking our men and women to put their lives on the line.
Readiness is not just machines. Readiness is not just going out and
turning and burning in a jet or in the ground on a tank. It is the
families that are involved. We ask these high up-tempo operations at a
cost of family separation, and the No. 1 indicator of our men and women
leaving the service is family separation. That is part of readiness as
well. We need to get a grip on this.
I ask Members on both sides of the aisle to support this
supplemental, because if we do not get it, and I quote, our military
will shut down at the end of this fiscal year.
{time} 1145
Mr. LIVINGSTON. Mr. Speaker, I yield 3 minutes to the gentleman from
Indiana [Mr. Burton], a distinguished member of the Committee on
International Relations.
Mr. BURTON of Indiana. Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentleman for
yielding.
Let me just say that the gentlewoman who has worked so hard on the
Mexican issue is to be commended, the gentleman from Alabama [Mr.
Callahan], subcommittee chairman, should be commended, the gentleman
from California [Mr. Cox], the gentleman from Florida [Mr. Young], the
chairman, the gentleman from Louisiana [Mr. Livingston], and the
gentleman from Wisconsin [Mr. Obey] for putting language in here that
at least gives the Congress an opportunity to get information on the
Mexican bailout.
But as the gentlewoman from Ohio said, we still are not going to have
a vote on the ultimate $52 billion that is going to go to Mexico,
$52,000 million that is going to Mexico without a vote by the people's
House on their tax dollars.
So far it was reported in the Los Angeles Times yesterday that of the
first $5 billion, $5,000 million, that was sent to Mexico, $4 billion,
$4,000 million, was used to pay off American insurance companies,
mutual fund investors, Wall Street brokerage houses, Mexican banks, and
the richest of Mexico's rich, these people that bought their tesobonos,
their bonds, down there, and that is not what we were sending the money
down there for in the first place.
It is really a tragedy our tax dollars are being used to pay off
these people who invested in Mexico knowing the risks. We are bailing
out the big investors who took the risks, and now they are being repaid
even though they should have taken the loss like anybody else that
invests in financial instruments.
Now, this legislation does head in the right direction. It is a step
in the right direction. The President is going to have to certify to
the Congress what this money is being spent for, where it is going.
They do not particularly like that at the White House, but,
nevertheless, they are going to have to do it, otherwise additional
tranches of money are not going to go to Mexico.
That still begs the issue. Should we be sending this money down there
in the first place? Anyone who is following the financial markets knows
the dollar has been dropping like a rock. It is at the lowest levels
against the Japanese yen in decades, and in large part, if you talk to
many economists, you will find that is due to the Mexican bailout that
has been taking place unilaterally by the executive branch of
Government.
This Congress was going to vote on it. We had a proposal that would
protect the American taxpayer. We could not get Mexico to go along with
the provisions. We could not get the White House to go along with the
provisions. They decided to use the Exchange Stabilization Fund, which
has never been used for that purpose before to my knowledge. There are
some people that question the legality of it.
As a result, the peso has continued to drop. It finally stabilized at
half of what it was worth. The dollar continues to drop.
We are responsible for the taxpayers' dollar. Even though the
Committee on Appropriations is to be commended for at least putting
this language in the legislation, it does not go far enough. We
ultimately need an up-or-down vote on whether we should continue to
send billions of United States taxpayers' dollars, billions of United
States taxpayers' dollars to Mexico without any guarantees it is going
to be repaid. That money right now is going down a rat hole.
Of the first $12 billion that has gone down there, $11 billion of it
is gone. They have only increased their reserves by $1 billion. We
still need an up-or-down vote on this entire issue.
Mr. LIVINGSTON. Mr. Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the distinguished
gentleman from Alabama [Mr. Callahan], chairman of the Subcommittee on
Foreign Operations, Export Financing and Related Programs, who did an
outstanding job in the conference.
(Mr. CALLAHAN asked and was given permission to revise and extend his
remarks.)
Mr. CALLAHAN. Mr. Speaker, I rise in support of the conference report
on the supplemental appropriations and rescissions bill. As chairman of
the Subcommittee on Foreign Operations, I am pleased to report that we
have participated in the effort to offset the defense spending in this
bill by reducing foreign aid spending by $142 million. In addition, we
have reallocated $15 million from the Russian Officer Housing
[[Page H4355]] Program, a program I have strongly opposed, to other
economic assistance in the New Independent States. However, these funds
would not be available to Russia.
These reductions are a downpayment on the cuts that will be necessary
in fiscal year 1996. In addition, we will be looking at further
reductions in the second rescission bill that is currently pending in
the Senate.
In addition, while we have not provided debt relief for Jordan in
this conference agreement, we have pledged to address this issue in the
second rescission bill as well. We committed ourselves to meeting the
parameters of the agreement between the administration and Jordan in
support of the October 1994 peace agreement. The President believes
this debt relief is in the national security interest of the United
States, and we will make every effort to provide the full amount for
debt relief in the next rescission bill.
I would just like to say a few words about the agreement on Mexican
debt relief. The agreement we have reached with the Senate requires the
President to provide the information on the Mexican debt crisis called
for in House Resolution 80. This resolution passed the House by an
overwhelming bipartisan majority of 407 to 21. If you voted for that
resolution, you should support this agreement.
The bill language does not cut off aid to Mexico. It does, however,
require the President to provide the information requested in House
Resolution 80, prior to the extension of additional aid to Mexico.
Mr. Speaker, I strongly support this conference agreement to provide
needed additional funds for our national security, and I urge its
adoption.
Mr. OBEY. Mr. Speaker, I have no further requests for time, and I
yield back the balance of my time.
Mr. LIVINGSTON. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself the balance of my time.
Mr. Speaker, I am overwhelmed with the gentleman's remarks.
I would only say, Mr. Speaker, that I think this is an outstanding
compromise with the other body.
It meets the emergency needs of our young people in uniform in the
armed services. It requires documentation from the White House on the
Mexican affair, and it is a good bill.
I urge adoption of H.R. 889.
Mr. COLEMAN. Mr. Speaker, I rise today in support of the conference
agreement on H.R. 889, the defense supplemental bill. However, I do so
with strong reservations. The conference agreement rescinds a net total
of $746 million in fiscal year 1995 and prior years appropriations in
order to fund emergency defense and Coast Guard needs and to make
additional offsetting reductions.
Mr. Speaker, I support the emergency supplemental appropriations that
are required to restore funds spent by the Department of Defense and
the Coast Guard in unanticipated peacekeeping operations. In
particular, the conference agreement provides the $28.3 million
requested by the President to reimburse the Coast Guard for operating
expenses associated with extraordinary Caribbean regional activities. I
am concerned that the conference committee did not fully fund the
supplemental request for the operation and maintenance accounts, the
backbone of our Armed Forces.
I also have strong reservations about the $223 million rescission
included in the DOD-related section of this bill for the Technology
Reinvestment Program [(TRP]. A program such as the TRP is very
important to our national security interests. I, and others, feel that
the TRP is vitally necessary to our country's future as we position
ourselves strategically in the post-Cold War era. The President,
Secretary of Defense Perry, Office of Management and Budget Director
Rivlin and Fortune 500 corporations oppose the rescission of these
funds, which would ensure that commercial firms in this country supply
the superior technologies needed to maintain our military advantage.
In addition, I do not support the $775 million rescinded in the bill
for important domestic programs. Mr. Speaker, in particular, I take
exception to the rescissions of $200 million slated for cutting
critical employment and training programs for our Nation's youth, and
$100 million to be taken out of programs for our Nation's school
children and college students. I am also concerned about the rescission
of $6.6 million from the Local Rail Freight Assistance [LRFA] Program,
which has a major, beneficial impact on the economy of smaller
communities, small businesses and job creation.
In summary, I believe the result of the conference agreement on H.R.
889, while flawed, should be passed so that military readiness is not
impaired. I urge my colleagues to vote for the conference report.
Mr. LIVINGSTON. Mr. Speaker, I have no further requests for time, and
I yield back the balance of my time.
The SPEAKER pro tempore (Mr. Hastings of Washington). Without
objection, the previous question is ordered on the conference report.
There was no objection.
The SPEAKER pro tempore. The question is on the conference report.
Pursuant to clause 7 of rule XV, the yeas and nays are ordered.
The vote was taken by electronic device, and there were--yeas 343,
nays 80, not voting 11, as follows:
[Roll No. 296]
YEAS--343
Abercrombie
Ackerman
Allard
Andrews
Archer
Armey
Bachus
Baesler
Baker (CA)
Baker (LA)
Baldacci
Ballenger
Barcia
Barr
Barrett (NE)
Bartlett
Barton
Bass
Bateman
Beilenson
Bentsen
Bereuter
Berman
Bevill
Bilbray
Bilirakis
Bishop
Bliley
Blute
Boehlert
Boehner
Bonilla
Bonior
Bono
Borski
Boucher
Brewster
Browder
Brown (CA)
Brown (FL)
Brown (OH)
Brownback
Bryant (TN)
Bryant (TX)
Bunn
Bunning
Burr
Buyer
Callahan
Calvert
Camp
Canady
Cardin
Castle
Chabot
Chambliss
Chenoweth
Christensen
Chrysler
Clement
Clinger
Coble
Coleman
Collins (GA)
Combest
Condit
Cooley
Costello
Cox
Cramer
Crane
Crapo
Cremeans
Cubin
Cunningham
Danner
Davis
de la Garza
Deal
DeLauro
DeLay
Deutsch
Diaz-Balart
Dicks
Dingell
Doggett
Dooley
Doolittle
Dornan
Doyle
Dreier
Dunn
Durbin
Edwards
Ehrlich
Emerson
Engel
English
Ensign
Eshoo
Everett
Ewing
Farr
Fawell
Fazio
Fields (TX)
Flake
Flanagan
Foley
Forbes
Ford
Fowler
Fox
Franks (CT)
Frelinghuysen
Frisa
Funderburk
Gallegly
Ganske
Gejdenson
Gekas
Gephardt
Geren
Gibbons
Gilchrest
Gillmor
Gilman
Gonzalez
Goodlatte
Goodling
Gordon
Goss
Greenwood
Gunderson
Hall (OH)
Hall (TX)
Hamilton
Hancock
Hansen
Harman
Hastert
Hastings (WA)
Hayes
Hayworth
Hefley
Hefner
Heineman
Herger
Hilleary
Hobson
Hoke
Horn
Hostettler
Houghton
Hoyer
Hunter
Hutchinson
Hyde
Inglis
Istook
Jackson-Lee
Jacobs
Jefferson
Johnson (CT)
Johnson, E. B.
Jones
Kanjorski
Kaptur
Kelly
Kennedy (MA)
Kennedy (RI)
Kennelly
Kildee
Kim
King
Kingston
Kleczka
Klink
Knollenberg
Kolbe
LaFalce
LaHood
Lantos
Largent
Latham
LaTourette
Laughlin
Lazio
Leach
Levin
Lewis (CA)
Lewis (KY)
Lightfoot
Linder
Livingston
LoBiondo
Longley
Lowey
Lucas
Maloney
Manton
Manzullo
Markey
Martinez
Martini
Mascara
Matsui
McCarthy
McCollum
McCrery
McDade
McHale
McHugh
McInnis
McKeon
McNulty
Meehan
Meek
Menendez
Metcalf
Meyers
Mfume
Mica
Miller (CA)
Miller (FL)
Molinari
Mollohan
Montgomery
Moorhead
Morella
Murtha
Myers
Myrick
Neal
Nethercutt
Neumann
Ney
Norwood
Nussle
Oberstar
Obey
Olver
Ortiz
Orton
Oxley
Packard
Parker
Paxon
Payne (VA)
Peterson (FL)
Petri
Pickett
Pombo
Pomeroy
Porter
Portman
Poshard
Pryce
Quillen
Quinn
Radanovich
Reed
Regula
Richardson
Riggs
Rivers
Roberts
Roemer
Rogers
Rohrabacher
Ros-Lehtinen
Rose
Roth
Roukema
Royce
Sabo
Salmon
Sanford
Sawyer
Saxton
Schaefer
Schiff
Scott
Seastrand
Sensenbrenner
Shadegg
Shaw
Shays
Shuster
Sisisky
Skaggs
Skeen
Skelton
Slaughter
Smith (MI)
Smith (NJ)
Smith (TX)
Smith (WA)
Solomon
Souder
Spence
Spratt
Stearns
Stenholm
Stockman
Stump
Stupak
Talent
Tanner
Tate
Tauzin
Taylor (MS)
Taylor (NC)
Tejeda
Thomas
Thornberry
Thornton
Thurman
Tiahrt
Torkildsen
Torricelli
Traficant
Visclosky
Volkmer
Vucanovich
Waldholtz
Walker
Walsh
Wamp
Ward
Watts (OK)
Weldon (FL)
Weldon (PA)
Weller
White
Whitfield
Wicker
Wilson
Wolf
Young (AK)
Young (FL)
Zeliff
Zimmer
NAYS--80
Barrett (WI)
Becerra
Clay
Clayton
Clyburn
Coburn
Collins (IL)
Collins (MI)
Conyers
Coyne
DeFazio
Dellums
Dixon
Duncan
Ehlers
Evans
Fattah
Fields (LA)
[[Page H4356]] Filner
Foglietta
Frank (MA)
Franks (NJ)
Furse
Graham
Green
Gutierrez
Gutknecht
Hastings (FL)
Hilliard
Hoekstra
Holden
Johnson (SD)
Johnson, Sam
Johnston
Klug
Lewis (GA)
Lincoln
Lipinski
Lofgren
Luther
McDermott
McKinney
Mineta
Minge
Mink
Moakley
Nadler
Owens
Pallone
Pastor
Payne (NJ)
Pelosi
Peterson (MN)
Rahall
Ramstad
Rangel
Roybal-Allard
Rush
Sanders
Schroeder
Schumer
Serrano
Stark
Stokes
Studds
Thompson
Torres
Towns
Tucker
Upton
Velazquez
Vento
Waters
Watt (NC)
Williams
Wise
Woolsey
Wyden
Wynn
Yates
NOT VOTING--11
Burton
Chapman
Dickey
Frost
Hinchey
Kasich
McIntosh
Moran
Reynolds
Scarborough
Waxman
{time} 1213
Mr. WYNN, Mr. CLYBURN, Mrs. CLAYTON, Mr. SCHUMER, Mrs. MINK of
Hawaii, and Messrs. COYNE, WISE, MOAKLEY, THOMPSON, and FIELDS of
Louisiana changed their vote from ``yea'' to ``nay.''
Mr. BRYANT of Texas, Mr. SHADEGG, and Mrs. THURMAN changed their vote
from ``nay'' to ``yea.''
So the conference report was agreed to.
The result of the vote was announced as above recorded.
A motion to reconsider was laid on the table.
____________________