[Congressional Record Volume 141, Number 96 (Tuesday, June 13, 1995)]
[House]
[Pages H5764-H5776]
From the Congressional Record Online through the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]




      PROVIDING FOR CONSIDERATION OF H.R. 1530, NATIONAL DEFENSE 
                 AUTHORIZATION ACT FOR FISCAL YEAR 1996

  Mr. SOLOMON. Mr. Speaker, by direction of the Committee on Rules, I 
call up House Resolution 164 and ask for its immediate consideration.
  The Clerk read the resolution, as follows:

                              H. Res. 164

       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. 1530) to authorize appropriations for fiscal 
     year 1996 for military activities of the Department of 
     Defense, to prescribe military personnel strengths for fiscal 
     year 1996, and for other purposes. The first reading of the 
     bill shall be dispensed with. All points of order against 
     consideration of the bill are waived. General debate shall be 
     confined to the bill and the amendments made in order by this 
     resolution and shall not exceed two hours equally divided and 
     controlled by the chairman and ranking minority member of the 
     Committee on National Security. After general debate the bill 
     shall be considered for amendment under the five-minute rule.
       Sec. 2. (a) It shall be in order to consider as an original 
     bill for the purpose of amendment under the five-minute rule 
     the amendment in the nature of a substitute recommended by 
     the Committee on National Security now printed in the bill. 
     The committee amendment in the nature of a substitute, as 
     modified by striking section 807, and by an amendment printed 
     in part 3 of the report of the Committee on Rules 
     accompanying this resolution, shall be considered as read. 
     All points of order against the committee amendment in the 
     nature of a substitute are waived.
       (b) No amendment to the committee amendment in the nature 
     of a substitute, as modified, shall be in order except the 
     amendments printed in the report of the Committee on Rules 
     accompanying this resolution, amendments en bloc described in 
     section 3 of this resolution, and the amendments described in 
     section 4 of this resolution.
       (c) Except as specified in section 5 of this resolution, 
     each amendment printed in the report shall be considered only 
     in the order printed in the report, may be offered only by a 
     Member designated in the report, shall be considered as read, 
     and shall not be subject to a demand for division of the 
     question in the House or in the Committee of the Whole. 
     Unless otherwise specified in the report, each amendment 
     printed in the report shall be debatable for ten minutes 
     equally divided and controlled by the proponent and an 
     opponent and shall not be subject to amendment (except that 
     the chairman or ranking minority [[Page H5765]] member of the 
     Committee on National Security each may offer one pro forma 
     amendment for the purpose of further debate on any pending 
     amendment).
       (d) All points of order against amendments printed in the 
     report, amendments en bloc described in section 3 of this 
     resolution, and amendments described in section 4 of this 
     resolution, are waived.
       (e)(1) Consideration of amendments printed in subpart A of 
     part 1 of the report of the Committee on Rules accompanying 
     this resolution shall begin with an additional period of 
     general debate, which shall be confined to the subject of 
     cooperative threat reduction with the states of the former 
     Soviet Union and shall not exceed thirty minutes equally 
     divided and controlled by the chairman and ranking minority 
     member of the Committee on National Security.
       (2) Consideration of amendments printed in subpart D of 
     part 1 of the report of the Committee on Rules accompanying 
     this resolution shall begin with an additional period of 
     general debate, which shall be confined to the subject of 
     ballistic missile defense and shall not exceed sixty minutes 
     equally divided and controlled by the chairman and ranking 
     minority member of the Committee on National Security.
       Sec. 3. It shall be in order at any time for the chairman 
     of the Committee on National Security or his designee to 
     offer amendments en bloc consisting of amendments printed in 
     part 2 of the report of the Committee on Rules accompanying 
     this resolution not earlier disposed of or germane 
     modifications of any such amendment. Amendments en bloc 
     offered pursuant to this section shall be considered as read 
     (except that modifications shall be reported), shall be 
     debatable for twenty minutes equally divided and controlled 
     by the chairman and ranking minority member of the Committee 
     on National Security or their designees, shall not be subject 
     to amendment, and
      shall not be subject to a demand for division of the 
     question in the House or in the Committee of the Whole. 
     For the purpose of inclusion in such amendments en bloc, 
     an amendment printed in the form of a motion to strike may 
     be modified to the form of a germane perfecting amendment 
     to the text originally proposed to be stricken. The 
     original proponent of an amendment included in such 
     amendments en bloc may insert a statement in the 
     Congressional Record immediately before the disposition of 
     the amendments en bloc.
       Sec. 4. (a) It shall be in order for Representative Clinger 
     of Pennsylvania, with the concurrence of Representatives 
     Collins of Illinois, to offer the amendment numbered 1 in 
     subpart C of part 1 of the report of the Committee on Rules 
     in a modified form that is germane to the form printed in the 
     report.
       (b) After disposition of all other amendments, it shall be 
     in order at any time for the chairman of the Committee on 
     National Security or his designee to offer an amendment not 
     printed in the report of the Committee on Rules accompanying 
     this resolution to reconcile spending levels reflected in the 
     bill with the corresponding level reflected in a conference 
     report to accompany a concurrent resolution on the budget for 
     fiscal year 1996. The amendment shall be considered as read, 
     shall be debatable for ten minutes equally divided and 
     controlled by the chairman and ranking minority member of the 
     Committee on National Security or their designees, shall not 
     be subject to amendment, and shall not be subject to a demand 
     for division of the question in the House or in the Committee 
     of the Whole.
       Sec. 5. (a) The chairman of the Committee of the Whole may 
     postpone until a time during further consideration in the 
     Committee of the Whole a request for a recorded vote on any 
     amendment made in order by this resolution.
       (b) The chairman of the Committee of the Whole may reduce 
     to not less than five minutes the time for voting by 
     electronic device on any postponed question that immediately 
     follows another vote by electronic device without intervening 
     business, provided that the time for voting by electronic 
     device on the first in any series of questions shall be not 
     less than fifteen minutes.
       (c) The chairman of the Committee of the Whole may 
     recognize for consideration of any amendment made in order by 
     this resolution out of the order printed but not sooner than 
     one hour after the chairman of the Committee on National 
     Security or a designee announces from the floor a request to 
     that effect.
       Sec. 6. At the conclusion of consideration of the bill for 
     amendment the Committee shall rise and report the bill to the 
     House with such amendments 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 committee amendment in the nature of a substitute, 
     as modified. The previous question shall be considered as 
     ordered on the bill and amendments there to final passage 
     without intervening motion except one motion to recommit with 
     or without instructions.

  The SPEAKER pro tempore. The gentleman from New York [Mr. Solomon] is 
recognized for 1 hour.
  Mr. SOLOMON. Mr. Speaker, for the purposes of debate only, I yield 30 
minutes to the gentleman from Massachusetts [Mr. Moakley], pending 
which I yield myself such time as I might consume. During consideration 
of this resolution all time yielded is for the purposes of debate only.
  (Mr. SOLOMON asked and was given permission to extend his remarks.)
  Mr. SOLOMON. Mr. Speaker, House Resolution 164 is a complicated 
structured rule that will permit the House to consider H.R. 1530, the 
national defense authorization bill for fiscal year 1996. The rule 
waives all points of order against the bill and against its 
consideration, and provides for 2 hours of general debate divided 
equally between the chairman and ranking minority members of the 
Committee on National Security.
  The rule makes in order the Committee on National Security amendment 
in the nature of a substitute as original text for amendment purposes. 
That text is modified by striking section 807, which deals with 
recoupment of research and development costs, and by an amendment 
printed in part 3 of the report on the rule which deals with the Elk 
Hills Naval Petroleum Reserve in California, about which I will have a 
colloquy with the gentleman from California [Mr. Thomas] in a few 
minutes.
  All points of order against the substitute are waived.
  Unless otherwise specified in the rule, the rule makes in order only 
those amendments that are printed in the report of the Committee on 
Rules, certain amendments en bloc, and pro forma amendments offered by 
the chairman and ranking minority members of the Committee on National 
Security.
  Except as otherwise specified in the rule, the amendments shall be 
considered in the order and the manner specified in the report.
  The rule provides that amendments printed in part 2 of the report 
shall be debatable for 10 minutes each, equally divided and controlled 
by a proponent and an opponent.
  The amendments shall be considered as read and are not subject to 
amendment unless otherwise specified in the report, and they are not 
subject to a demand for a division of the question in the House or in 
the Committee of the Whole. The rule waives all points or order against 
the amendments printed in the report.
                              {time}  1215

  The rule also provides for an extra 30 minutes of general debate on 
cooperative threat reduction with the former Soviet Union in part 1 of 
the report, and an extra 60 minutes of general debate on ballistic 
missile defense, also in part 1.
  The rule provides that the gentleman from Pennsylvania [Mr. Clinger] 
may offer a germane modification to his amendment on acquisition 
reform, with the concurrence of the gentlewoman from Illinois [Mrs. 
Collins]. And I repeat, with the concurrence of the gentlewoman from 
Illinois [Mrs. Collins].
  The chairman of the Committee on National Security or his designee is 
authorized to offer amendments en bloc consisting of amendments in part 
2 of the report or germane modifications thereto. Amendments en bloc 
shall be considered as read except that modifications shall be 
reported. Amendments en bloc shall not be subject to amendments en bloc 
shall be subject to amendment or a division of the question in the 
House or the Committee of the Whole, and they shall be debatable for 20 
minutes.
  The rule waives all points of order against the amendment en bloc.
  The rule authorizes the chairman of the Committee of the Whole to 
postpone consideration of a request for a recorded vote on any 
amendment and to reduce to 5 minutes the time for voting after the 
first of a series of votes.
  The Chairman of the Committee of the Whole is also authorized to 
recognize for consideration of any amendment printed in the report out 
of the order in which it is printed, but not sooner than, and this is 
important for Members listening, not sooner than 1 hour after the 
chairman of the Committee on National Security or his designee 
announces from the floor a request to that effect. That is so Members 
will be properly alerted.
  The rule authorizes the chairman of the Committee on National 
Security to offer an amendment not printed in the report to reconcile 
spending levels in the bill with the final defense spending level 
contained in the conference report on the budget 
resolution. [[Page H5766]] 
  This amendment, if offered, shall be considered as read and shall not 
be subject to amendment or to demand for a division of the question. 
This amendment, if offered, shall be debatable for 10 minutes, equally 
divided between the chairman and ranking minority member of the 
committee of jurisdiction.
  And, finally, Mr. Speaker, the rule provides for one motion to 
recommit with or without instructions.
  This, then, is the rule which will permit the House to work its will 
on H.R. 1530.
  Mr. Speaker, the national defense authorization bill is the most 
important piece of legislation that comes before this body in any given 
year, and especially this year. I say that because of my conviction 
that protecting the territory and the vital security interests of the 
United States of America, what the Constitution calls providing for the 
``common defense,'' is the preeminent constitutional obligation of the 
Federal Government. It is, in fact, the one true entitlement program.
  This bill represents the one thing that every American in this 
country, regardless of race, creed, age, sex or any other distinction, 
can expect to receive from the Federal Government. That is why we 
formed this Republic of States.
  Mr. Speaker, what a difference an election makes. Anyone who believes 
that elections do not make a difference should just study this bill.
  When we compare this bill with the administration's request, we find 
procurement is up 11 percent. Research and development are up 5 
percent. Operations and maintenance are up 3 percent. Military 
construction and family housing are up 5 percent. And how terribly 
important that is when we have an all-volunteer military, with families 
living in deplorable conditions in our military today. And instead of a 
ceiling limiting the number of military personnel, ladies and 
gentlemen, we find a floor below which the number of uniformed 
personnel on active duty will not go.
  We are going to maintain a strong military preparedness in this 
country. To provide for all of these vital increases, yet only 
increasing this overall defense bill by a mere 3.8 percent, we make 
substantial cutbacks in nondefense expenditures.
  These have been clogging the defense authorization bill in recent 
years, creating the appearance that defense spending is much higher 
than it really is. We find such things as non-defense Department of 
Energy activities charged to the defense budget. They are substantially 
reduced and will be reduced further in years to come. Nondefense 
funding for environmental restoration is down 12 percent. So-called 
peacekeeping is zeroed out altogether, at least as far as this defense 
budget is concerned.
  And, Mr. Speaker, we will not permit our active-duty personnel to be 
hollowed out, and their readiness impaired, all in the pursuit of so-
called peacekeeping. That does not belong in this budget. If there are 
funds needed, fund it out of the foreign affairs bill or some place 
else, not out of the military budget.
  In short, Mr. Speaker, this bill stops and even reverses the 10-year 
decline in the national defense budget of this country.
  For the first time since fiscal year 1985, this House will pass a 
national defense authorization bill that increases our commitment to 
providing for the common defense over the previous year.
  Mr. Speaker, I will conclude this portion of the debate by citing a 
most significant remark made shortly after the Persian Gulf war by the 
Saudi Arabian general who served as his country's chief liaison officer 
at General Schwarzkopf's headquarters. The Saudi Arabian general said, 
``If the world is to have only one superpower, thank God it is the 
United States of America.'' Believe you me, Mr. Speaker, he was 
speaking for more than his own people in Saudi Arabia. He was speaking 
for the entire free world.
  Mr. Speaker, our country is by destiny rather than choice the one 
remaining superpower in this world. This year we will pass a defense 
budget that is equal to that obligation.
  ``If the world is to have only one superpower, thank God it is the 
United States of America.''
  Mr. Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.
  Mr. MOAKLEY. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume.
  Mr. Speaker, no matter what my Republican colleagues may say--this 
rule is not fair.
  The bill gives the Pentagon $9.5 billion more than they asked for and 
the rule will keep anyone from changing that.
  As far as I am concerned, $9.5 billion is a lot of money; $9.5 
billion could send 1.6 million children to Head Start. It could put 
268,818 new police officers on the street. It could even go so far as 
to clean up the Boston Harbor.
  I wonder why Republicans are insisting on giving the Pentagon more 
money than it needs when we are having trouble paying for the things we 
do need?
  If my colleagues are truly interested in cutting spending, especially 
unnecessary spending, why do they refuse to allow people to cut some of 
the wasteful spending out of this bill?
  A number of Members have some very good ideas on how to save a lot of 
money and cut out a lot of unnecessary military spending. But under 
this rule, their amendments are not going to be allowed to see the 
light of day.
  I suspect these amendments are being kept from the floor because, 
despite the Republican majority, despite the cohesion of their party, 
these amendments just might pass.
  Meanwhile, to add insult to injury, just when you thought we had 
gotten over the most ridiculous fantasy of all, star wars, here it is 
again, and this rule will protect it to the bitter end.
  What Republicans are saying is that it is OK to cut spending, as long 
as it is not spending for something they like, no matter what the 
Pentagon says, no matter what our defense needs, even the Pentagon says 
they do not need this much money to defend the country.
  I urge my colleagues to defeat the previous question to allow a vote 
on amendments to redirect military spending toward readiness and away 
from star wars and to cut unnecessary waste. I reserve the balance of 
my time.
  Mr. Speaker, I yield such time as she may consume to the gentlewoman 
from California [Ms. Harman].


                          personal explanation

  Ms. HARMAN. Mr. Speaker, because of my son's graduation from college, 
I was necessarily absent for votes on Thursday, June 8.
  Had I been present, I would have voted ``yes'' on rollcall 362, 
directing the President to lift the arms embargo against Bosnia, and I 
would have voted ``no'' on rollcall 366, final passage of the American 
Overseas Interests Act.
  Mr. MOAKLEY. Mr. Speaker, what the gentlewoman neglected to say was 
that her son graduated magna cum laude from Harvard, so I mean, nobody 
from Massachusetts could deny a request like that.
  Mr. Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.
  Mr. SOLOMON. Mr. Speaker, I yield such time as he may consume to my 
good friend, the gentleman from California [Mr. Thomas], a classmate of 
mine. We came here together 17 years ago, and he is a very valuable 
member of the Committee on Ways and Means and a member of the 
California delegation; I yield this time to him for a colloquy.
  Mr. THOMAS. Mr. Speaker, I thank the chairman for entering into a 
colloquy over section 2 of the rule affecting the sale of the naval 
petroleum reserve at Elk Hills.
  Is it the chairman's understanding the new language in the amendment 
incorporated in the bill through this rule regarding settlement 
regarding the so-called school lands issue and California's interest in 
the naval petroleum reserve permits California to be fully compensated 
for its interest in Elk Hills?
  Mr. SOLOMON. Mr. Speaker, will the gentleman yield?
  Mr. THOMAS. I yield to the gentleman from New York.
  Mr. SOLOMON. I will say to the gentleman based on my interpretation 
of that language, it certainly does.
  Mr. THOMAS. Is the chairman aware of the State's concern about the 
amendment's possible effect on getting fair market value for its 
interest by giving Federal agencies power to force the State to take 
less than, in their opinion, fair value for those claims?
[[Page H5767]]

  Mr. SOLOMON. I would say to that, yes. Again, there is no question 
for the amendment to preclude or limit the State of California from 
pursuing judicial remedies should an agreement or settlement with the 
Federal Government not be arrived at in this matter. And as the 
gentleman knows, Mr. Dan Lundgren is another former classmate of ours 
who came here with us, and in his position in the California 
government, I think you can be assured there will be a reasonable 
settlement out of this. Do you not think so?
  Mr. THOMAS. I believe the attorney general of California feels 
comforted by the chairman's statement that there is no intention to 
preclude a judicial remedy if we cannot reach agreement. I am perfectly 
satisfied we will reach agreement.
  But it is a comfort for the chairman to indicate that is his 
interpretation of the rule.
  I thank the chairman for the colloquy.
  Mr. SOLOMON. Again, the people of the State of California ought to be 
proud of the gentleman for standing up for their interests.
  Mr. Speaker, I yield 2\1/2\ minutes to the gentleman from Sanibel, FL 
[Mr. Goss], a very distinguished member of the Committee on Rules.
  (Mr. GOSS asked and was given permission to revise and extend his 
remarks.)
  Mr. GOSS. Mr. Speaker, I thank my distinguished friend from Glens 
Falls, NY, the distinguished chairman of the Committee on Rules.
  Mr. Speaker, like the chairman I believe it is imperative, absolutely 
imperative, that we maintain the strongest, best equipped, most 
professional military in the world.
  The world is counting on us to do it.
  I am pleased this rule makes in order a defense authorization bill 
that will help to strengthen our national security by restoring funding 
in several vital areas and focusing on our true priorities in others.
  This rule makes in order some 56 amendments from both sides of the 
aisle, 56 amendments. I am confident that there will be full and open 
debate on such important issues as to whether or not to fund more B-2 
bombers, the status of aid to Russia, missile defense strategy, 
procurement reform, things we are talking about in America.
  While the minority may find fault with a specific amendment made in 
order or lack thereof, perhaps, Members should be aware this Committee 
on Rules has continued the tradition of reviewing and allowing numerous 
amendments to the DOD bill on a bipartisan basis. National security is 
not partisan matter.
  One tradition we have not followed, however, in the Committee on 
Rules is the practice of granting multiple rules for the consideration 
of this bill. Last year we needed two rules. The year before, it took 
four rules to complete the DOD bill.
  So this single rule is welcome progress toward efficiency as well as 
fairness.
  Mr. Speaker, the cold war is over. As we have witnessed in the Middle 
East, Bosnia, and Korea, there are still many actual and potential 
regional conflicts that could easily threaten the United States and 
individual members of our military forces. Our readiness must not be 
allowed to deteriorate to the minimum acceptable level.
  In this uncertain world, we still need deterrence and we still need 
to be able to handle any threat to our security. Our military, for now, 
I think, has distinguished itself once again in a great way. We 
certainly have proven that we give the best training and the best 
equipment to our troops, and that it is justified. It is also true, I 
might add, we have an obligation not to misuse our military for 
nonmilitary purposes. Haiti comes to mind in that vein.
  Having said that, it is evident the administration, sadly, has been 
cutting back our Armed Forces too quickly and not enough thought given 
to the impact that specific cuts would have on our security. Once 
again, I commend the Committee on National Security for bringing 
forward this bill, and I urge passage of this rule for its fair 
consideration of the bill.

                              {time}  1230

  Thinking of the remarkable exploits and successful saga of Scott 
O'Grady and his rescuers, can any Member do less than support this 
bill?
  Mr. MOAKLEY. Mr. Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the gentlewoman from 
Colorado [Mrs. Schroeder].
  Mrs. SCHROEDER. Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentleman for yielding this 
time to me, and I must say I stand in absolute opposition to this rule. 
I find this rule very, very offensive. Three quarters of the cutting 
amendments that we wanted to offer have not been allowed.
  Now, for someone to say, ``Oh, yeah, but we're giving you one rule 
rather than multiple rules,'' hey, I will take multiple any day if it 
allows a real debate on these issues, and the reason that this is so 
distracting is what we are doing in this rule, if this rule passes, is 
we are hermetically sealing in $9.5 billion that the Pentagon does not 
want, that the President does not want and that the Senate does not 
think is needed. But somehow, because the House committee thinks it is 
needed, we are going to seal it in so the people like myself, senior 
members of the committee, cannot even offer an amendment to take it 
back down to the level every other reasonable group seems to think is 
adequate.
  Now this is not what the Pentagon wants. What we are doing is force 
feeding the Pentagon money they have not asked for. It seems to me that 
at a time when we are trying to balance the budget we ought to be 
looking at need-based concerns. The Pentagon came up with a need-based 
budget based on two major wars. It was 92 cents for every dollar that 
was spent by the Pentagon during the cold war. I would have guessed 
that was too high. But we cannot even get to that because of this add-
on of $9.5 billion.
  I have got to say what are we doing here as we are standing here 
cutting school lunches, student loans, all these other things and 
saying for every other Department of Government we are looking at the 
fat, we are trimming what is in there, but for the Defense Department 
it is going to be different. Not only are we not going to look at what 
they requested, we are going to give them even more than they 
requested. It used to be we gave them everything they wanted. Now we 
are giving them all sorts of things they do not even want.
  Now figure that out at a time when we are spending more money for 
defense than the rest of the world. This makes no sense. Defeat this 
rule.
  Mr. Speaker, the chairman of the House National Security Committee, 
in his statement in the May 18 Congressional Record, said that while 
other departments are expected to put their fiscal houses in order, the 
Department of Defense does not because ``Defense is different.''
  Defense has been deemed so different by the House National Security 
Committee that not only does it not have to face painful cuts, they get 
an unrequested increase of $9.5 billion, an increase that largely pays 
for unrequested weapons systems. It takes us off the so-called 
procurement holiday and puts on a procurement splurge. This bill adds 
$553 million for two unrequested B-2 bombers, $550 million in 
unrequested funds for the Seawolf submarine, $160 million for eight 
unrequested AV-8B Harriers, an unrequested sum of $974 million for an 
amphibious transport dock ship. This is just the beginning. I could 
keep going, but I would run out of time before I ran out of adds.
  I had hoped to offer an amendment eliminating the $9.5 billion 
increase to return the spending level to the level requested by the 
Pentagon. I assume the generals over at the Pentagon know what they 
need. However, my amendment was denied.
  This unrequested increase is a lot of money, $9.5 billion can buy a 
lot in the civilian world. It can buy things that make a real 
difference in peoples lives. It could clean up 380 Superfund sites, pay 
for Pell grants for 4 million needy students, cover prenatal and 
postpartum care for 2.4 million uninsured pregnant women. It could pay 
for 95 million mammograms and double biomedical research at NIH. It 
could cover child care costs for 2.5 million children under 5 for a 
year, and feed 11.6 million hungry people in the United States one 
nutritious meal a day for 1 year. If you don't think those are wise 
investments, then it could be block granted to the States at a level of 
$190 million for each of the 50 States, or returned to the Treasury for 
deficit reduction.
  In light of the budget cuts domestic programs will be taking to 
balance the budget, it is impossible to justify this $9.5 billion 
increase. We are still spending 92 cents for every dollar we spent 
during the cold war, and the threats we face loom nowhere as large. In 
[[Page H5768]] fact, we are spending more on our defense than our NATO 
allies, Russia, and Japan combined. I find it blatantly inconsistent 
that the majority, who is so strongly dedicated to balancing the 
budget, has carved out the defense budget as their sacred cow, and has 
refused to allow it to be questioned. The Democratic process is based 
on questions and challenges. In this case the process has been 
subverted. The $9.5 billion increase in this bill is unjustifiable. 
This is not the Pentagon's increase; it is the committee's. Cuts to the 
funding level of H.R. 1530 are substantive amendments and should have 
been allowed. I urge my colleagues to oppose the rule.
  Mr. MOAKLEY. Mr. Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from 
Colorado [Mr. Skaggs].
  Mr. SKAGGS. Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentleman for yielding this time 
to me.
  Mr. Speaker, I oppose this rule, and I oppose it because it makes it 
impossible for the House even to consider reversing a serious mistake 
made by the Committee on Natural Security. That mistake was to reduce 
the authorization for the Energy Department's environmental management 
programs by almost three quarters of a billion dollars and to add that 
money into missile defenses, the Star Wars Programs. Those priorities 
are exactly wrong.
  Mr. Speaker, as we might say to our kids, ``We need to clean up our 
room before we use our allowance to buy new toys.''
  Through its environmental management programs, the Department of 
Energy carries out the work of cleaning up places like Rocky Flats 
site, in my district, and other sites around the country, facilities 
where America developed and built the nuclear weapons that helped us 
win the cold war. Those cleanup costs are part of the cost of that 
victory. They have to be paid. And while the possible benefits of 
increased spending beyond what the Defense Department has asked for on 
star wars are highly speculative, there is absolutely nothing 
speculative about the benefits in health and safety that we will gain 
by expending these necessary funds for cleaning up Rocky Flats and the 
other weapon sites.
  The gentleman from Illinois [Mr. Evans] and myself each offered an 
amendment that we asked to be made in order under this rule; neither 
was. Mine would have restored all the money; his would have restored a 
major part of it. But neither was made in order. So, this House will 
have no opportunity to decide whether or not cleaning up this mess 
created over 3\1/2\ decades ought not to come first.
  As a result, with this restrictive rule we will be denied the 
opportunity to debate and have the will of the House done on this 
issue. I have no choice under these circumstances but to oppose this 
unfair, unwise, and restrictive rule, and I urge my colleagues, as 
well, to vote ``no.''
  Mr. MOAKLEY. Mr. Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from 
Oregon [Mr. DeFazio].
  Mr. DeFAZIO. Mr. Speaker, in bringing forward the largest budget of 
the Federal Government, the largest general fund discretionary 
expenditure of the Federal Government, under a restrictive rule we have 
got to ask what is the majority afraid of, why is it that they do not 
want to have the free interplay of the legislative process here on the 
floor of the House of Representatives? What is it they are trying to 
protect?
  Well, Mr. Speaker, I say to my colleagues, you heard earlier from 
Mrs. Schroeder from Colorado, and you'll hear later from others, there 
are a number of things they want to protect. They want to protect the 
procurement process at the Pentagon. You know, it came out that they 
lost $15 billion in the procurement process over the last 10 years 
which they can't account for--simple bookkeeping errors. Do you think 
there is any other segment of the Federal Government where, if there 
was a $15 billion scandal, that we wouldn't be in full cry on the floor 
of the House, amendment after amendment, hearings, special 
investigations, special committees? But hey, the Pentagon just lost $15 
billion. So they can't account for it--minor clerical error--and there 
will be no substantive amendments to overhaul the procurement process 
at the Pentagon in this bill. They will not be allowed for under this 
rule.
  Then there is the little item of the Office of Support Aircraft. In a 
GAO report that Senator Grassley and I obtained it says that we are 
probably 50 to 75 percent overbuilt for administrative support 
aircraft; that is, we are at such a point where every one-star general 
at the Pentagon, every deputy junior assistant secretary, is taking a 
helicopter to go to Andrews Air Force base to get on their private jet 
planes and fly off to routine meetings at extraordinary costs to the 
Federal taxpayers. The estimates of GAO say we could save $200 million 
a year from this account and meet the legitimate defense and military 
requirements of this country. We spent $275,000 to send the Air Force 
Cadets to Hawaii. That is a scandal.
  Mr. SOLOMON. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume.
  Mr. Speaker, I have heard the last two speakers talk about toys that 
we are going to give to our military, and there is nothing, I guess, 
that aggravates me more.
  As my colleagues know, back in 1979, when we had allowed our military 
to go to hell, soldiers were on food stamps with their families. It was 
a disgrace in this Nation what we had done to them. This Congress had 
allowed the military preparedness of this country to disintegrate. And 
we had hostages being held in a place called Iran, and we tried to 
rescue those hostages. At that time our equipment was in such bad 
condition we had to cannibalize 14 helicopter gunships just to get 5 
that would, perhaps, work. Three of the five failed, and so did the 
mission, and we never did bring those hostages out with a rescue 
attempt.
  My colleagues know to look now at what has happened. We look at 
Desert Storm, where we had the fewest casualties possible. Why? It is 
because we had the highest technology, the state-of-the-art equipment, 
equipment that allowed us to see the enemy--they could not see us.
  Mr. Speaker, if we are going to put other men and women into combat 
and into harm's way, we better give them the very best. We have an all-
volunteer military. One of the proudest, proudest jobs one could have 
in America today is serving in our military, and then we hear these 
things called toys? Stinger aircraft missiles, multiples launch rocket 
systems, Hellfire antitank missiles, AV-8 Harriers--excuse me for 
getting so excited, but, as my colleagues know, when I hear advanced 
technology called toys I just get burned up.
  We are going to provide an adequate military for our military 
personnel, and that is exactly what this bill does.
  Mr. Speaker, I yield such time as she may consume to the gentlewoman 
from Utah [Mrs. Waldholtz], a very valuable member of the Committee on 
Rules.
  Mrs. WALDHOLTZ. Mr. Speaker, I rise in strong support of the rule. 
This is a critical issue for us to consider. As defense spending has 
steadily declined over the last decade, we were able to maintain the 
world's premiere fighting force by spending our defense dollars more 
wisely. However, in the last couple of years we have seen numerous 
indicators that our military readiness is dangerously on the decline 
and our military personnel are suffering in pay, in housing, in 
training. This bill is a step toward reversing that troubling trend.
  This rule provides for fair consideration of a critical issue. 
Because of the scope and importance of this issue, we could debate the 
defense bill until the end of the year, and there are undoubtedly some 
who would like to. Our rule allows amendments on a wide variety of 
important issues that are of interest to members.
  This rule is a fair attempt to allow members to air their differences 
and at the same time allow us to move forward in determining the future 
of our national defense.
  Mr. Speaker, I urge my colleagues to support this rule.
  Mr. MOAKLEY. Mr. Speaker, I yield 4 minutes to the gentlewoman from 
Oregon [Ms. Furse].
  Ms. FURSE. Mr. Speaker, it is time to stop behaving like a herd of 
ostriches. Let us get our heads out of the sand.
  I had a simple amendment. It would mean that we would stop buying C-
17's until the Pentagon had come forth with its report in November and 
until that report has been analyzed. That is a very commonsense 
amendment, but [[Page H5769]] my amendment was denied. Congress cannot 
even get to discuss this issue.
  Now I believe that the C-17 is a goldplated turkey whose wings are 
broken. I believe that it is a lemon, and I believe that we could look 
at its history and learn something.
  In 1985 we were told that this plane would carry 86 tons 2,400 miles 
with no refueling. Well, that payload has been reduced four times. We 
were told it would be ready by September 1992. But in fact there will 
not be flight testing completed until 1995, this year. We were promised 
no significant recalls, yet in 1991, Mr. Speaker, it went back to the 
shop to fix fuel leaks. In 1992, went back because the wings had 
problems. The slats melted, the wings buckled. In 1993, went back 
because the main landing gear collapsed.
  If this was an automobile, the C-17 would be a lemon no one would 
waste their money on, and yet the taxpayers are being asked to pony up 
another $2.6 billion this year.
  And although the C-17 has had all these problems, what happened to 
the price sticker? Well, in 1989 we were told it would cost $199 
million each, but in 1995 the price is $563 million each. If this were 
an automobile, consumers would be filing complaints with the Federal 
Trade Commission.

                              {time}  1245

  Yet, we are not even allowed to discuss this issue on the floor of 
the House of Representatives, the people's House.
  I wanted to remind Members, it is not they who are paying for the C-
17, it is the U.S. taxpayer, and they deserve to know what it is they 
are buying.
  Why is there this congressional wall of silence? Four independent 
reports have shown we get a better airlift if we mix C-17's and 747's 
or C-5's. That mix, we are told by four independent reports, would save 
$15 billion of the taxpayers' money.
  No one would buy a car without reading the Consumer Reports. No one 
would buy a car where the features get axed and the price goes up. 
Members of Congress should be as thrifty as their constituents are. Why 
aren't they? What is the deal here?
  It is time to stop wasting defense dollars. It is time the taxpayer 
gets an accounting. No more expensive lemons. Let us get the airlift we 
need at the price we can afford. Let us defeat this rule. Let us give 
the American taxpayer their money's worth.
  Mr. MOAKLEY. Mr. Speaker, I yield 7 minutes to the gentleman from 
California [Mr. Dellums], the ranking member of the Committee on 
National Security.
  Mr. DELLUMS. Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentleman for yielding.
  Mr. Speaker, as I have said on more than one occasion here, I both 
understand and respect the fact that all of us come here with different 
perspectives, different points of view, different philosophies, 
different values, and different politics at the end of the day, and 
that we engage in a relevant and significant debate on the critical 
issues of our time.
  But it seems to me this is the one place where we all should always 
come together, without difference, and that is that the process by 
which we engage in these substantive discussions and substantive 
debates be characterized as a process that embraces the principles of 
fairness, openness, dignity, and integrity.
  I am chagrined at the fact that I must rise this afternoon, Mr. 
Speaker, suggesting to you that the rule that governs the DOD 
authorization bill for fiscal year 1996 does not meet that test. For 
those reasons, I must rise in opposition to the rule proposed to govern 
debate on H.R. 1530. It is not fair. It does not serve well the 
legislative process. That is why we are here, to engage in a 
deliberative process to arrive at substantive policy conclusions that 
affect the lives of millions of Americans and people throughout the 
world.
  It excludes important issues from the debate, and it makes in order 
an amendment that addresses major issues which need to be worked on by 
several committees, but instead they were not worked on by several 
committees. It ignores a lengthy history of allowing for significant 
debate on this important annual legislation, and it does not return the 
fair play that I believe this gentleman brought when I sat as chair in 
the last Congress to the debate of national security policy.
  Previous rules have successfully permitted expedited and fair 
consideration of the defense authorization bill, one of the most 
important and expensive elements of our national undertakings, Mr. 
Speaker. Few enough amendments were filed this year in this gentleman's 
opinion to allow the Committee on Rules to make additional relevant, 
important amendments in order. This would provide for a better debate, 
one well within the time-frame envisioned by the majority leadership.
  We should not, Mr. Speaker, become captives of time. We have time to 
debate these matters. What more important issue could we ever discuss 
than the national security of this Nation? We should provide adequate, 
ample time to engage in that process substantively.
  Mr. Speaker, whether in personal matters, weapons procurement, 
research and development, foreign policy initiatives, or acquisition 
reform, the failure to initiate full-fledged evenhanded inquires and 
the public solicitation of the views of outside experts constitutes, in 
this gentleman's humble opinion, a real legislative shortcoming.
  Acquisition reform is just one major area in which such procedural 
shortcoming initiate substantive programs, in the bill or by amendment, 
with significant potential unintended consequences, and all without 
meaningful legislative deliberations. I testified at some length on 
this matter before the Committee on Rules. I was prepared to answer 
every question dealing with this extraordinary shortcoming to the 
members of the Committee on Rules. Yet, in spite of that testimony, we 
find this matter coming before the Congress in this bill without 
hearings, without markup, and without the involvement of other 
committees of relevant jurisdiction.
  Mr. Speaker, that is why we are being paid. That is why we were 
elected. That is why this process was set up. To short circuit it in 
the interests of time or for some reason to exploit an opportunity, 
denying the Members their responsibility to carry out their fiduciary 
responsibilities with respect to their duties as Members of Congress, 
it seems to me is incredibly shortsighted.
  Many Members who felt compelled to remedy the deficiencies that are 
in the acquisition reform bill by virtue of the fact that the process 
was short-circuited have been denied that opportunity to attempt to 
refine and address the misgivings and shortcomings that they perceived 
because the Committee on Rules chose not to provide them that 
opportunity. So they lost on both counts. The process did not allow 
them to be involved and the rule that we are debating and discussing at 
this moment does not give them the opportunity to engage the process a 
second time.
  Efforts to restore environmental management funds to the Department 
of Energy, to provide impact aid, to provide educational funds to local 
communities, were not made in order, because the Committee on Rules 
considered them as amendments to cut funds from the ballistic missile 
defense program.
  Mr. Speaker, this Catch-22 requires Members to provide offsets for 
amendments that have dollar costs associated with them. That is the 
rule. That is the name of the game. Yet when they provided such 
offsets, their amendments were, in this gentleman's opinion, unfairly 
considered to be interchangeable with amendments that sought as a 
matter of policy to reduce ballistic missile defense funding.
  I also testified specifically on this matter. I urged the members of 
the Committee on Rules to place those two amendments in the policy 
context that they were attempting to raise, that these were not 
ballistic missile defense amendments that should indeed be played off 
against each other. Yet my admonishment, my cautiousness and my thought 
processes were laid on the table as these amendments were denied the 
opportunity to be debated in the full light of day. Other important 
policy amendments were also not made in order.
  Finally, Mr. Speaker, amendments were offered that sought to reduce 
the authorization level proposed in the [[Page H5770]] Committee on 
National Security report, H.R. 1530. As you know, the committee placed 
roughly $10 billion in budget authority above what the President 
requested. The budget resolution allowed that ceiling. But I would 
argue that the House should have the right in the context of this 
debate to reduce total authorizations in the light of the types of 
programs the Committee on National Security bought with the budget 
resolution's increased funding. That is all right. We are the 
authorization committee. It is one thing in the context of the budget 
resolution. But it seems to me it is only proper, only fair, only 
intellectually honest and politically appropriate to allow a Member of 
Congress to come to this floor and say now that you have engaged in 
consideration and deliberation on this bill, I have the right or 
someone would have the right to offer an amendment to reduce that 
level, now that they know the purposes to which you put the funds. But 
the Committee on Rules chose not to provide that. I do not understand 
the principle upon which that decision rests, Mr. Speaker.
  In conclusion, an informed and thorough debate should assure the 
American people that all of the issues that affect our national 
security might fully be considered and decided in the full light of 
day. I do not believe that the proposed rule, as I said earlier, 
achieves that goal. For that reason, Mr. Speaker, I urge my colleagues 
to reject this rule.
  Mr. SOLOMON. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume.
  Mr. Speaker, if I can have the attention of the ranking member just 
briefly, I was so surprised to hear my friend, and he is my friend, 
rise in opposition to the rule. At the gentleman's request, I 
specifically declined to write into this rule a time limit on the bill 
which might preclude Members from having time to offer their 
amendments. Every single amendment made in order is going to be debated 
on this floor. There is no king-of-the-hill provision giving the 
majority an edge, which other parties have had in years past as the 
gentleman knows. This Committee on Rules under Republican leadership 
will not have a king-of-the-hill provision. That is a provision whereby 
an amendment can pass with 240 votes, yet be knocked out by one that 
has only 218 votes. No more of that. Everything is a fair fight.
  Last, amendments are made in order on every single major issue, 
whether it is the Nunn-Lugar cooperative threat reduction, whether it 
is the ballistic missile defense, whether it is burden sharing, whether 
it is the tritium issue, whether it is abortion, all of these issues 
are singled out. The B-2 bomber, that is in there.
  So I just call that to the Member's attention. This is truly a fair 
rule. I just wanted to let the gentleman know we are still trying to be 
fair.
  Mr. Speaker, I yield 1\1/2\ minutes to the gentleman from Claremont, 
CA [Mr. Dreier], the vice chairman of the Committee on Rules, and a 
very valuable Member of this body.
  (Mr. DREIER asked and was given permission to revise and extend his 
remarks.)
  Mr. DREIER. Mr. Speaker, I thank my friend for yielding me this time.
  Mr. Speaker, I rise in strong support of this rule. Fairness, 
openness, dignity, and integrity are exactly what this rule offers, as 
was raised by my friend from Oakland, the distinguished ranking 
minority member of the Committee on National Security. It seems to me 
as the gentleman from New York, [Mr. Solomon] just enumerated, 
virtually every single proposal is being considered in this 
legislation. With nearly 200 amendments submit to the Committee on 
Rules, some decisions had to be made. I believe that using those guides 
of fairness and openness, we have successfully done that with this 
rule. I would like to say I believe we are clearly on track here.
  I think as we look at our challenge of trying to deal with the 
national security of this country, as we have faced as the gentleman 
from New York [Mr. Solomon] has raised on several occasions the fact 
that Captain Scott O'Grady was shot down and the challenges that we 
look at there, and, of course, nuclear expansion throughout the world, 
this bill is a measure which is very positive in addressing it.
  It seems to me that as we look at one of the very important items 
that directly impacts my State, the Federal Government is making a 
right decision in selling off the naval petroleum reserve at Elk Hills, 
and also recognizing that for nearly a century and a half, the State of 
California has had a very modest claim on part of that, and I hope that 
we will be able to work out a satisfactory compromise on that with the 
amendment that has been brought forward.
  I thank my friend for yielding and strongly support this rule.
  Mr. MOAKLEY. Mr. Speaker, I yield 2\1/2\ minutes to the gentleman 
from Alabama [Mr. Browder].
  Mr. BROWDER. Mr. Speaker, I appreciate the gentleman yielding.
  Mr. Speaker, I would like to engage my friend, the distinguished 
gentleman from New York [Mr. Solomon], in a colloquy.
  Mr. Chairman, I had a relatively minor amendment which attempted to 
delete $17 million for the Army to build a 49th museum in the monument 
corridor here in Washington, DC, and direct that to family housing. The 
gentleman talked about the family housing, and it has been testified 
before our committee, on which I sit, that this is a crisis. I wanted 
to redirect this $17 million to family housing. I thought that was a 
pretty good idea. I spoke in subcommittee and full committee asking for 
the right that I place my amendment on the floor, and both subcommittee 
and committee chairman expressed an understanding to that.

                              {time}  1300

  I think that is normal procedure for reserving your right to bring an 
amendment to the floor.
  What I would like to ask you is, could you explain to me why, and I 
think other Members of Congress may have this same question, for a 
member who follows normal procedure in reserving the right to bring it 
to the floor, why this amendment was not considered in the rule?
  Mr. SOLOMON. Mr. Speaker, will the gentleman yield?
  Mr. BROWDER. I yield to the gentleman from New York.
  Mr. SOLOMON. Mr. Speaker, let me say to my good friend, I would like 
to make every amendment in order that is not duplicative so that every 
Member can work their will.
  As the gentleman knows, we are limited with a window of opportunity. 
We could only make so many amendments in order. I will say this for the 
gentleman: His Democrat leadership did include his amendment on a 
second tier of amendments they would like to have had made in order. We 
made almost all of the first tier amendments in order. There is no more 
time to add more amendments to it.
  It is not just the gentleman. I have a Member, the gentleman from 
Wisconsin, Mr. Klug, who will not even speak to me now from our side of 
the aisle because his amendment was not made in order. We tried to be 
as fair as we could.
  Mr. BROWDER. Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentleman for his efforts but 
this is, I think, an important amendment. We have people in military 
housing, family housing that is falling apart. I think we should have 
done it. The Army, I think, has gagged this amendment from coming 
forward. I think this is an insult to the American taxpayer, and it is 
an insult to the American military families who are in this housing.
  Mr. SOLOMON. Mr. Speaker, just to answer the gentleman, we are 
providing for an additional 5 percent, that is a huge increase, in 
construction and housing for our military. It is something that is so 
badly needed. We are taking care of it in this bill.
  Mr. Speaker, [Mr. Linder], another valuable member of the Committee 
on Rules.
  Mr. LINDER. Mr. Speaker, it was not very long ago, 1981, when Ronald 
Reagan became President of the United States and inherited a military 
where one-third of our planes could not fly for lack of spare parts, 
one-third of our ships were in dry dock.
  Our soldiers were practicing with pretend bullets, as the chairman of 
the Committee on rules stated. Troops were on food stamps. Over the 
next 8 years of buildup and fleshing out, we won the cold war. But the 
fact of the matter is, our military has been declining in real terms 
since 1985. Though adjusted for inflation, we are not much further 
ahead in spending than we were [[Page H5771]] in 1941, and it is time 
to build back up again. It is time to get our troops off food stamps, 
to get them into good housing.
  This bill is an effort to do that. The rule under which it will be 
debated is a fair rule. We will have opportunities to debate most of 
the substantive issues that come before us. There will be plenty of 
time to have the discussions heard.
  Sure, some amendments did not make it. That happens in virtually 
every bill that comes to the floor. Even under some open rules, if 
there is a time frame, they do not make it.
  This is a fair rule, it deserves to be supported by the entire body, 
and I strongly support the rule and urge my colleagues to do also.
  Mr. MOAKLEY. Mr. Speaker, I yield 3 minutes to the gentleman from 
Massachusetts, [Mr. Frank], a very vocal member of the Massachusetts 
delegation.
  Mr. FRANK of Massachusetts. Mr. Speaker, I thank the former chairman 
of the Committee on Rules for whose regime I have become increasingly 
nostalgic. It is hard to be vocal when one is gagged.
  This rule will provide for the least adequate discussion of a defense 
authorization bill in the 15 years I have been in Congress. There has 
not, in my time here, been a rule which so severely limited Members' 
ability to discuss things.
  Efforts by Members on our side to reduce the overall authorization to 
the President's number were simply arbitrarily canceled. They were 
ruled out of order. The chairman said, We tried hard. They tried hard, 
having first made it clear that they could not succeed.
  We are in session 3 days this week. Apparently, under the Republican 
calendar, we only have this week for the defense bill. We did nothing 
on Monday. We will do nothing on Friday.
  To cram the entire defense authorization bill, $270 billion, the 
biggest single discretionary item, into 3 days, with general debate, 
with the rule, when you then have 2 days in which we do nothing, why 
were we not meeting on Monday or Friday? Why under this new, hard-
working Republican regime would we not be dealing with this bill? We 
have a Tuesday, Wednesday, Thursday setting.
  The Seawolf issue will not be coming up. Burden sharing is up. But 
burden sharing in the past has had three or four different versions 
that Members could choose among. The gentleman from Texas, Mr. Bryant, 
had a much more forceful one that I was prepared to support in addition 
to my own. It is not allowed. The Committee on rules simply has 
restricted discussion of these issues more than they have ever been.
  We will not be talking about the single biggest item in the 
discretionary budget. We will not be talking about Seawolf. We will 
have one version to choose from. In some cases, important issues will 
be debated for 20 minutes; in some cases, 40 minutes. But we will be 
indeed extremely restricted.
  The Republican party has decided to begin increasing military 
spending at the expense of health research and Medicare and Head Start 
and other programs, and we will not allow a serious discussion. This is 
not a rule brought forward by Members who want a lot of attention to 
what they are doing. This is a rule that says, We are going to increase 
military spending significantly, far more than it seems to me needed, 
and we will have very restricted debate.
  The notion that efforts to bring the authorization level down to what 
the President proposed will not be allowed is outrageous. The chairman 
of the Committee on rules said, Well, we did not do this and we did not 
do that. I suppose if you were on trial and you were going to be 
sentenced for some crime, you could plead all the crimes you did not 
commit. I do not think that would be very persuasive.
  Frankly, I would rather have some of these issues up, whether it was 
king of the hill or king of the mountain or queen of the May. We could 
vote on them. The gentleman said, We will not vote on them at all. We 
have got nothing. The gentleman has made a mountain into a molehill. A 
hill would look pretty good to us right now. The single most important 
issue we have got, and it is the most restricted rule I can imagine.
  Mr. SOLOMON. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume.
  Let me just say to the gentleman who just spoke, who said that we 
will not be doing anything on Friday. On Friday we will be taking up 
the military construction appropriations bill. That is a very, very 
important piece of legislation. In trying to be family friendly with so 
many requests from your side of the aisle, we are going to try to get 
out of here by 2 p.m. on Friday.
  Mr. FRANK of Massachusetts. Mr. Speaker, will the gentleman yield?
  Mr. SOLOMON. I yield to the gentleman from Massachusetts.
  Mr. FRANK of Massachusetts. Mr. Speaker, in this case I would put 
being taxpayer friendly ahead of being family friendly. I think our 
families would not mind if we debated some serious issues about defense 
and you let us talk about cutting $9 billion back to the President's 
level.
  Mr. SOLOMON. Mr. Speaker, I was just going to look up the gentleman's 
rating by the National Taxpayers Union as being one of the big 
spenders.
  Mr. FRANK of Massachusetts. Mr. Speaker, if the gentleman will 
continue to yield, that is because they never counted military 
spending.
  Mr. SOLOMON. Mr. Speaker, I will submit that for the Record in due 
time.
  Let me comment briefly on the statement about the overall funding for 
this bill. Yes, it is funded at $267 billion. And no, the Schroeder 
amendment was not allowed because we all know that we are in very, very 
delicate negotiations with the Senate right now over the total budget 
for this Government.
  We have already voted on the level of spending in the budget that 
passed this House and consequently, we do not want to do anything that 
is going to interrupt those negotiations with the Senate.
  I think it is extremely important that we keep this bill at that 
level of spending.
  Mr. Speaker, I yield 3 minutes to my good friend, the gentleman from 
Evans, GA [Mr. Norwood]. He is a new Member of this body, and we sure 
are glad to have him here.
  Mr. NORWOOD. Mr. Speaker, I particularly thank the chairman because 
he knows, as I know, I am not on the Committee on Rules nor am I on the 
Committee on National Security, but I am also interested in defense. I 
do not think you have to be a rocket scientist to know that over the 
last few years this country has weakened our defenses considerably, and 
I would like to see us strengthen them.
  In addition to strengthening them, I wanted to make sure that we do 
so and keep ourselves out of war. I have participated in one war, and a 
strong national defense is the certain way to make certain that my 
children and grandchildren do not have to participate in that.
  Now, Mr. Speaker, this rule is more than fair to all sides. With the 
scope and breadth of this bill, I think it would be impossible for us 
to move forward in shoring up our weakened defenses and the low level 
of readiness without such a structured rule and debate.
  In reviewing the rule, it is obvious that all points of view from 
hawk to dove will be represented and will be given ample time and 
opportunity to be heard.
  And once they are heard we will vote, and then we are going to move 
forward.
  This bill is too important to bog down in petty disagreements. We 
need this bill to better protect our soldiers in the field and to keep 
our technological edge in a very dangerous world.
  Yes, we have won the cold war. Now, because we have won that war, we 
are given a much more unstable world, which requires us to be just as 
vigilant, just as prepared, and just as willing to be the world's 
leader.
  Later in debate on this bill, I will outline the importance of 
resuming tritium production to our Nation's defense and the upkeep of 
our nuclear arsenal that has helped keep the world in peace over the 
last 50 years.
  This defense authorization is a step in the right direction that 
takes into account our more than $5 trillion worth of debt. Do I wish 
we could go further? Yes, I do. Do I wish we could go further? Indeed, 
I certainly do. Do I think this rule is fair? Yes, I do. Am I 
[[Page H5772]] going to vote for this rule? Yes, I am. And I do 
encourage my colleagues to do the same.
  Mr. MOAKLEY. Mr. Speaker, I yield such time as he may consume to the 
gentleman from Missouri [Mr. Volkmer].
  (Mr. VOLKMER asked and was given permission to revise and extend his 
remarks.)
  Mr. VOLKMER. Mr. Speaker, I rise in strong opposition to this very 
dastardly gag rule.
  Mr. MOAKLEY. Mr. Speaker, I yield 1 minute to the gentleman from 
Texas [Mr. Edwards].
  Mr. EDWARDS. Mr. Speaker, this rule is unfair to the children of 
military families. Let me repeat that: This rule is unfair to the 
children of military families. For some reason, the Republican 
leadership decided to prohibit an amendment that I had authored that 
would fully fund the impact aid program. The impact aid program is that 
program that provides education funds for the children of our military 
families living off bases all throughout the United States.
  The action of the Republican leadership in this case is to ensure at 
least a 50 percent cut in impact aid programs for military families all 
over this country. I think that is cruel. I think it is unfair. And it 
will hurt our military morale and readiness.
  Lest anyone think impact aid is not important, let me quote from the 
gentleman from Georgia, Speaker Newt Gingrich, in a letter of May 18 
where he said, ``We must preserve, protect, and improve the impact aid 
program so that it adequately serves those it was intended to serve.''
  The impact aid program should have been preserved. It has been cut by 
this rule.
  Mr. MOAKLEY. Mr. Speaker, I yield 1 minute to the gentleman from Ohio 
[Mr. Brown].
  Mr. BROWN of Ohio. Mr. Speaker, I oppose this very restrictive rule. 
Yesterday in Elyria, OH, I stood in front of 20 mostly elderly Lorain 
Countians to talk about Medicare cuts. They do not understand how we 
can spend $9\1/2\ billion more on military spending while we cut 
Medicare, and while we cut student loans, while we cut school lunches. 
They can also not understand how amendment after amendment can be 
denied, amendments that would cut further; 37 percent of the amendments 
that cut spending were denied, were not allowed under this rule.
  One particular amendment that was not allowed and that was especially 
important was to be offered by the gentlewoman from Oregon [Ms. Furse], 
to just further study the C-17, so we did not spend the kind of money 
that this Congress seems to want to spend. The majority wants to spend 
another $15 to $19 billion on the C-17 when we have alternatives. The 
C-17 flies half as far, carries half as much and costs twice as much as 
a 747 and the alternative that we could put together. Yet Republicans 
on the House floor will not allow us to debate this.
  Mr. Speaker, I oppose this restrictive rule.

                              {time}  1315

  Mr. SOLOMON. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume. 
Mr. Speaker, as everyone knows, there is a memorial service for our 
departed colleague, Les Aspin. We are trying to hold down our time 
here. I will be summing up for the majority, and we will not have any 
further speakers, but in order for the buses to leave on time, and we 
have 2 votes coming, we are going to try to expedite it. I just wanted 
that side to know that.
  Mr. MOAKLEY. Mr. Speaker, if the gentleman will yield, I would ask 
the gentleman, are we going to have the votes before we leave?
  Mr. SOLOMON. That is up to you, sir.
  Mr. MOAKLEY. I am glad I have some decision around here.
  The SPEAKER pro tempore (Mr. Wicker). The gentleman from 
Massachusetts [Mr. Moakley] has 2 minutes remaining.
  Mr. MOAKLEY. Mr. Speaker, I yield 1 minute to the gentleman from 
Illinois [Mr. Evans].
  Mr. EVANS. Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentleman for yielding time to 
me.
  Mr. Speaker, this week I plan to offer an amendment to restore $282 
million of the $744 million deleted from the Chairman's mark from DOE's 
environmental restoration and waste management budget request. 
Unfortunately, my amendment was not made in order by the Committee on 
Rules.
  As a member of the committee, I had offered a germane amendment that 
I had offered in the full committee, and for good reason. The committee 
canceled a hearing dedicated to the DOE's nuclear weapons cleanup 
program. In effect, Congress will be making an uninformed decision 
about the funding priorities in the program that will run into the 
hundreds of billions of dollars, and which will affect the health and 
safety of Americans around the DOE weapons complex.
  Why did this process fail? Many of the same Members who decided to 
rob DOE's environmental funding to build B-2 bombers and other cold war 
weapons systems also have DOE facilities in their districts. They do 
not want to have to go on the record as voting against this funding, 
and the majority's rules ensures that they will not have to. I urge my 
colleagues to oppose the rule.
  Mr. MOAKLEY. Mr. Speaker, I yield 1 minute to the gentleman from New 
Mexico [Mr. Richardson] who is also part-time Ambassador to Korea.
  (Mr. RICHARDSON asked and was given permission to revise and extend 
his remarks.)
  Mr. RICHARDSON. Mr. Speaker, in the past the Pentagon asked for money 
and the Congress always delivered. Now the Pentagon does not ask for 
money, and the Congress gives them more.
  Mr. Speaker, I believe that the overall spending in this bill is much 
higher than needed for an adequate national defense posture. 
Unfortunately, the rule we are considering does not allow many of us to 
express this concern.
  To raise defense spending for questionable reasons, when no such 
spending increases are necessary, is not the right thing to do. It is 
simply inconsistent to ask Americans to set priorities, then increase 
military spending, despite lower requests from the administration and 
the Pentagon. The Clinton administration is not cutting defense. 
Instead, it is meeting requests of the Pentagon.
  Mr. Speaker, the Department of Defense has done some good things, 
very good things, in the last year: our peacekeeping operations in 
Rwanda and Haiti; its excellent work at Guantanamo Bay with the refugee 
situation; training programs, as evidenced by Captain O'Grady and many 
others.
  Mr. Speaker, I include for the Record a letter from William J. Perry 
to the Honorable Alan J. Dixon.
  The letter referred to is as follows:

                                     The Secretary of Defense,

                                     Washington, DC, June 9, 1995.
     Hon. Alan J. Dixon,
     Chairman, Defense Base Closure and Realignment Commission, 
         Arlington, VA.
       Dear Mr. Chairman: Since I forwarded my recommendations to 
     you on February 28, 1995, I have appreciated the excellent 
     manner in which the Commission has conducted its demanding 
     work under your leadership. I write today to maintain the 
     open exchange of information that has been a hallmark of this 
     Commission's relationship with the Department of Defense.
       As a normal part of its process, the Air Force has been 
     conducting site surveys to refine the financial analysis of 
     recommendations affecting Air Force bases. During this 
     process, the financial picture on Kirtland Air Force Base, 
     New Mexico, has changed considerably. As you know, the 
     recommendation concerning Kirtland AFB was designed to retain 
     the Phillips Laboratory and other largely civilian 
     operations, while relocating most of the active duty military 
     operations, and closing related support functions.
       In its site survey process, the Air Force discovered that 
     many of the original cost estimates significantly understated 
     the costs of relocating the active duty units. The final 
     estimate of the one-time cost to implement the recommended 
     realignment is $538 million. I understand this figure and the 
     supporting COBRA analysis have been provided previously to 
     your staff. Although some options to reduce these costs were 
     examined, I understand that none of the options provided the 
     same benefits as estimated for the recommended realignment. 
     Significantly, the Department of Energy also asserted that 
     they received support far in excess of that currently 
     reimbursed to the Department of the Air Force for DOE 
     activities on Kirtland AFB. As a result, the total costs to 
     the United States Government were not captured in the 
     original estimates.
       After reviewing the results of the site survey, it is my 
     judgment that the recommendation for the realignment of 
     Kirtland AFB no longer represents a financially or 
     operationally sound scenario. I ask [[Page H5773]] that you 
     take these matters into consideration as the Commission 
     conducts its review of my recommendations.
           Sincerely,
                                                 William J. Perry.

  Mr. MOAKLEY. Mr. Speaker, I urge Members to defeat the previous 
question.
  Mr. Speaker, I include for the Record the amendments I would offer if 
the previous question is defeated.
  The amendments referred to are as follows:

       Amendment to House Resolution 164: On page 6, after line 6 
     add the following:
       ``(c) Before consideration of any other amendment, it shall 
     be in order to consider the following amendment as if printed 
     in the report to be offered by Representative Schroeder of 
     Colorado or her designee, debatable for 40 minutes equally 
     divided and controlled by the proponent and an opponent:
       An amendment to be offered by Representative Schroeder of 
     Colorado or a designee, debatable for 40 minutes: Page 16, 
     after line 8, insert the following new section:

     SEC. 4. LIMIT ON TOTAL AUTHORIZATION.

       In order to provide a total authorization of appropriations 
     in this Act of $257,602,636,000 (as proposed in the budget of 
     the President for fiscal year 1996), each amount in this Act 
     providing an authorization of appropriations is hereby 
     reduced by 4.0 percent.
       (d) After disposition of the amendment numbered 2 printed 
     in subpart D of part 1 of the report, it shall be in order to 
     consider the following amendment as if it were numbered 3 in 
     that subpart to be offered by Representative Edwards of Texas 
     or his designee, debatable for 20 minutes equally divided and 
     controlled by the proponent and an opponent:
       An amendment to be offered by Representative Edwards of 
     Texas or a designee, debatable for 20 minutes: At the end of 
     title III (page 153, after line 25), insert the following new 
     section:

     SEC. 396. DEPARTMENT OF DEFENSE DEPENDENT EDUCATION 
                   ASSISTANCE (IMPACT AID) FOR SCHOOL-AGED 
                   DEPENDENTS OF CERTAIN MILITARY PERSONNEL.
       (a) Provision of Dependent Education Assistance (Impact 
     Aid)--(1) In the case of students described in section 
     8003(a)(1)(D) of the Elementary and Secondary Education Act 
     of 1965 (20 U.S.C. 7703(a)(1)(D)), the Secretary of Defense 
     shall provide funds to local educational agencies that 
     received payments for these students from the Department of 
     Education in fiscal year 1994 or 1995 under the Act of 
     September 30, 1950 (Public Law 874, 81st Congress) or title 
     VIII of the Elementary and Secondary Education Act of 1965 
     (20 U.S.C. 7701 et seq.).
       (2) Subject to the availability of appropriations for this 
     purpose, funds shall be paid under this section in fiscal 
     years 1996, 1997, 1998, and 1999. However, the Secretary of 
     Defense may use the authority provided by this section only 
     in the event that payments under section 8003 of the 
     Elementary and Secondary Education Act of 1965 (20 U.S.C. 
     7703) for a fiscal year on behalf of students described in 
     subsection (a)(1)(D) of such section are not made in a total 
     amount equal to at least the level of funding for fiscal year 
     1995 under such section for such students.
       (b) Computation of Basic Payment.--Each local educational 
     agency described in subsection (a) shall be eligible for 
     basic payments, which shall be computed for each year by 
     multiplying--
       (1) the amount determined by dividing--
       (A) the amount of funds received by the local educational 
     agency in the second preceding fiscal year under this 
     subsection, section 3(b)(3) of the Act of September 30, 1950 
     (Public Law 874, 81st Congress), or section 8003(b) of the 
     Elementary and Secondary Education Act of 1965 (20 U.S.C. 
     7703(b)); by
       (B) the number of students described in section 
     8003(a)(1)(D) of such Act in average daily attendance in the 
     second preceding fiscal year; and
       (2) the number of such students in average daily attendance 
     of the local educational agency in
      the fiscal year preceding the fiscal year in which the 
     payment is being made.
       (c) Computation of Disability Payment.--Each local 
     educational agency described in subsection (a) shall also be 
     eligible for disability payments for students described in 
     section 8003(d)(1)(B) of the Elementary and Secondary 
     Education Act of 1965 (20 U.S.C. 7703(d)(1)(B)). The payment 
     required by this subsection shall be computed for each year 
     by multiplying--
       (1) the amount determined by dividing--
       (A) the amount of funds received by the local educational 
     agency during the second preceding fiscal year under this 
     subsection, section 3(d)(2)(C) of the Act of September 30, 
     1950 (Public Law 874, 81st Congress), or section 8003(d) of 
     the Elementary and Secondary Education Act of 1965 (20 U.S.C. 
     7703(d)); by
       (B) the number of students described in section 
     8003(d)(1)(B) of such Act in average daily attendance in the 
     second preceding fiscal year; and
       (2) the number of such students in average daily attendance 
     of each local educational agency in the fiscal year preceding 
     the fiscal year in which the payment is being made.
       (d) Heavily Impacted Assistance.--(1) Each local 
     educational agency described in subsection (a) shall also be 
     eligible for heavily impacted assistance if--
       (A) the local educational agency--
       (i) had an enrollment of students described in 
     subparagraphs (B) and (D) of section 8003(a)(1) of the 
     Elementary and Secondary Education Act of 1965 (20 U.S.C. 
     7003(a)(1)) during the previous fiscal year, the number of 
     which constituted at least 40 percent of the total student 
     enrollment of such agency; and
       (ii) has a tax rate for general fund purposes which is at 
     least 95 percent of the average tax rate for general fund 
     purposes of comparable education agencies in the State; or
       (B) the local educational agency--
       (i) had an enrollment of students described in 
     subparagraphs (B) and (D) of section 8003(a)(1) of the 
     Elementary and Secondary Education Act of 1965 (20 U.S.C. 
     7703(a)(1)) during the previous fiscal year, the number of 
     which constituted at least 35 percent of the total student 
     enrollment of such agency; and
       (ii) has a tax rate for general fund purposes which is at 
     least 125 percent of the average tax rate for general fund 
     purposes of comparable educational agencies in the State.
       (2)(A) For each local educational agency described in 
     paragraph (1), payments for each year shall be computed by 
     first determining the greater of--
       (i) the average per-pupil expenditure of the State in which 
     the agency is located; or
       (ii) the average per-pupil expenditure of all the States.
       (B) The Secretary shall next subtract from the amount 
     determined under subparagraph (A) the average amount of State 
     aid per pupil received for that year by each local 
     educational agency described in paragraph (1).
       (C) For each local educational agency described in 
     paragraph (1), the Secretary shall multiply the amount 
     determined under subparagraph (B) by the total number of 
     students described in subparagraphs (B) and (D) of section 
     8003(a)(1) of the Elementary and Secondary Education Act of 
     1965 (20 U.S.C. 7703(a)(1)) in average daily attendance for 
     that year.
       (D) Finally, the Secretary shall reduce the amount 
     determined under subparagraph (C) for a local educational 
     agency for a fiscal year by the total amount of--
       (i) all payments the local educational agency receives 
     under subsections (b) and (c) for that year; and
       (ii) any payments actually received under section 8003 of 
     the Elementary and Secondary Education Act of 1965 (20 U.S.C. 
     7703) for that year.
       (3) Notwithstanding any other provision of this section, a 
     local educational agency that actually receives funds under 
     section 8003(f) of the Elementary and Secondary Education Act 
     of 1965 (20 U.S.C. 7703(f)) for a fiscal year shall be 
     eligible to receive funds under this subsection only after 
     the full amount computed under paragraph (2) has been paid to 
     all local educational agencies described in paragraph (1) 
     that do not receive funds under such section for that fiscal 
     year.
       (4) For purposes of providing assistance under this 
     subsection, the Secretary shall use student and revenue data 
     from the local educational agency for the fiscal year for 
     which the agency is applying for assistance.
       (5) For purposes of this subsection, the Secretary shall 
     determine the current year State average per-pupil 
     expenditure data for the second preceding fiscal year by the 
     same percentage increase or decrease reflected between the 
     per-pupil expenditure data for the fourth preceding fiscal 
     year and the per-pupil expenditure data for the second 
     preceding fiscal year.
       (6) For purposes of this subsection, the term ``average 
     per-pupil expenditure'' means the aggregate current 
     expenditures of all local educational agencies in the State, 
     divided by the total number of children in average daily 
     attendance for whom such agencies provided free public 
     education.
       (e) Prohibition on Multiple Payments.--(1) Amounts received 
     by a local educational agency under subsection (d) in a 
     fiscal year, when added to amounts actually received under 
     section 8003(f) of the Elementary and Secondary Education Act 
     of 1965 (20 U.S.C. 7703(f)) for that year, may not exceed the 
     amount the agency would have received under such section had 
     assistance under such section been fully funded.
       (2) Amounts received by a local educational agency under 
     subsection (c) in a fiscal year, when added to amounts 
     actually received under section 8003(d) of the Elementary and 
     Secondary Education Act of 1965 (20 U.S.C. 7703(d)) for that 
     year, may not exceed the amount the agency would have 
     received under such section had assistance under such section 
     been fully funded.
       (3) Amounts received by a local educational agency under 
     subsection (b) in a fiscal year, when added to amounts 
     actually received under section 8003(b) of the Elementary and 
     Secondary Education Act of 1965 (20 U.S.C. 7703(b)) for that 
     year, may not exceed the amount the agency would have 
     received under such section had assistance under such section 
     been fully funded.
       (f) Proration of Amounts.--If necessary due to insufficient 
     funds to carry out this section, the Secretary shall ratably 
     reduce payments under subsections (b, (c), and (d).
       (g) Cooperation.--The Secretary of Education shall assist 
     the Secretary of Defense in gathering such information from 
     the local educational agencies and State educational agencies 
     as may be needed in order to carry out this section.
       (h) Funds for Fiscal Year 1996.--The amount provided in 
     section 301(5) for operation and maintenance for Defense-wide 
     activities is hereby increased by $100,000,000. Of the funds 
     corresponding to such increase-- [[Page H5774]] 
       (1) $50,000,000 shall be available for payments under 
     subsection (b) in fiscal year 1996;
       (2) $10,000,000 shall be available for payments under 
     subsection (c) in fiscal year 1996; and
       (3) $40,000,000 shall be available for payments under 
     subsection (d) in fiscal year 1996.
       (i) Authorization of Appropriations for Subsequent Years.--
     There are authorized to be appropriated for payments under 
     this section such sums as may be necessary for fiscal years 
     1997, 1998, and 1999.
       (j) Corresponding Reduction.--The amount provided in 
     section 201(5) for research, development, test, and 
     evaluation for Defense-wide activities, and the amount 
     provided in section 241 for the National Missile Defense, are 
     both reduced by $100,000,000.
       (e) It shall be in order to consider the following three 
     amendments as if the amendments were numbered 47, 48 and 49 
     and printed in part 2 of the report:
       47. An amendment to be offered by Representative Browder of 
     Alabama or a designee, debatable for 10 minutes: In the table 
     relating to authorized Army construction projects inside the 
     United States in section 2101(a), strike out the item 
     relating to Fort Myer, Virginia.
       In section 2104(a), reduce the amount specified in 
     paragraph (1) by $17,000,000 and increase the amount 
     specified in paragraphs (5)(A) by $17,000,000.
       48. An amendment to be offered by Representative Evans of 
     Illinois or a designee, debatable for 10 minutes: At the end 
     of title XXXI (page 532, after line 5), insert the following 
     new section:

     SEC. 3145. ADDITIONAL FUNDING FOR CERTAIN ENVIRONMENTAL 
                   RESTORATION AND WASTE MANAGEMENT PROGRAMS.

       (a) Additional Funding.--(1) Amounts authorized by section 
     3102(c) for waste management are hereby increased by 
     $150,000,000.
       (2) Amounts authorized by section 3102(f) for nuclear 
     materials and facilities stabilization are hereby increased 
     by $81,000,000.
       (3) Amounts authorized by section 3102(g) for compliance 
     and program coordination are hereby increased by $51,000,000.
       (b) Offset.--Amounts authorized by section 241 are hereby 
     reduced by $282,000,000.
      Affairs shall return such portion to the administrative 
     jurisdiction of the Secretary of the Army.
       (d) Legal Description.--The exact acreage and legal 
     description of the real property to be transferred under this 
     section shall be determined by surveys that are satisfactory 
     to the Secretary of the Army. The cost of such surveys shall 
     be borne by the Secretary of Veterans Affairs.
       (e) Additional Terms and Conditions.--The Secretary of the 
     Army may require such additional terms and conditions in 
     connection with the transfer under this section as the 
     Secretary of the Army considers appropriate to protect the 
     interests of the United States.
       49. An amendment to be offered by Representative Coleman of 
     Texas or a designee, debatable for 10 minutes: At the end of 
     subtitle C of title XXVIII (page 490, after line 2), insert 
     the following new section:

     SEC. 2834. TRANSFER OF JURISDICTION, FORT BLISS, TEXAS.

       (a) Transfer of Land and National Cemetery.--The Secretary 
     of the Army may transfer, without reimbursement, to the 
     administrative jurisdiction of the Secretary of Veterans 
     Affairs a parcel of real property (including any improvements 
     thereon) consisting of approximately 22 acres and comprising 
     a portion of Fort Bliss, Texas.
       (b) Use of Land.--The Secretary of Veterans Affairs shall 
     use the real property transferred under subsection (a) as an 
     addition to the Fort Bliss National Cemetery and administer 
     such real property pursuant to chapter 24 of title 38, United 
     States Code.
       (c) Return of Unused Land.--If the Secretary of Veterans 
     Affairs determines that any portion of the real property 
     transferred under subsection (a) is not needed for use as a 
     national cemetery, the Secretary of Veterans * * *.
       Strike subsection (a) of section 4 and redesignate 
     accordingly.
       At the end of the resolution, add the following:
       ``Notwithstanding any other provision of this resolution, 
     it shall not be in order to consider the amendments numbered 
     1 and 2 in subpart C of the report.''
  Mr. SOLOMON. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume.
  Mr. Speaker, I would try to expedite this matter, again for the 
services for Les Aspin.
  Mr. Speaker, I have heard the last couple of speakers speak. One in 
particular said he was talking to a group of senior citizens, and they 
vehemently objected to the amount of money being spent on this defense 
budget. I do not know about where he comes from in Ohio, but I come 
from Glens Falls, Queensbury, NY, up in the Adirondack Mountains. It is 
a funny thing, I go home every weekend, and I have for 17 years. It is 
a really beautiful place in this world. I never moved my family here to 
Washington and have commuted back and forth.
  Every weekend I see senior citizens. I saw a group this past weekend. 
I have an opportunity to tell them what was in this defense budget we 
are going to pass here this week. We talked about the need for it. So 
often Captain O'Grady's name came up. Captain O'Grady's name came up, 
and we have to ask ourselves, how was he rescued? How were we able to 
do that, when we have failed so miserably before, in years past, when 
we did not have a strong military preparedness? How was it that he was 
able to avoid his captors? How was it that he was able to have the 
equipment with him that was going to be able to communicate back to our 
troops?
  Then, how was it that we were able to jam their radars? How was it 
that we were able to go in there with our helicopter gunships and bring 
him out without even a casualty? It is because of what we are 
reinstating in this budget today. It is so terribly, terribly 
important.
  We must never, never, in the future of this country, ask men and 
women in All-Volunteer military to volunteer, and then to put them in 
harm's way without giving them the very best that we can do. I do not 
know of any senior citizen in my whole congressional district who 
resents the fact that we are going to spend a mere $8 billion more. I 
do not know of any that would.
  Therefore, Mr. Speaker, I would just say to Members today, this is a 
fair rule. I would ask them to vote for the rule, and I would ask them 
to give their wholehearted support to this very, very vital piece of 
legislation which is going to protect the strategic interests of this 
country around the world, but more than that, it is going to protect 
the men and women who serve in the Armed Forces of the United States of 
America.


                    amendment offered by mr. solomon

  Mr. SOLOMON. Mr. Speaker, I offer an amendment.
  The Clerk read as follows:

       Amendment offered by Mr. Solomon: Page 3, line 23, strike 
     ``A'' and insert in lieu thereof ``B''.

  Mr. SOLOMON. Mr. Speaker, the minority is aware of this amendment. It 
simply corrects a clerical error by changing the letter A to the letter 
B. This clarifies what the rule already specifies, and that the extra 
30 minutes of debate applies to the Nunn-Lugar topic, and not to the 
subject of the B-2 bomber.
  Mr. Speaker, I move the previous question on the amendment and on the 
resolution.
  The SPEAKER pro tempore. The question is on ordering the previous 
question on the amendment and on the resolution.
  The question was taken; and the Speaker pro tempore announced that 
the ayes appeared to have it.
  Mr. MOAKLEY. 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.
  Pursuant to clause 5(b) 1 of rule XV, the Chair may reduce to not 
less than 5 minutes the time for electronic voting, if ordered, on the 
amendment.
  This will be a 15-minute vote.
  The vote was taken by electronic device, and there were--yeas 225, 
nays 191, not voting 18, as follows:
                             [Roll No. 367]

                               YEAS--225

     Allard
     Archer
     Armey
     Bachus
     Baker (CA)
     Baker (LA)
     Ballenger
     Barr
     Barrett (NE)
     Bartlett
     Barton
     Bass
     Bateman
     Bereuter
     Bilbray
     Bilirakis
     Bliley
     Blute
     Boehlert
     Boehner
     Bonilla
     Bono
     Brownback
     Bryant (TN)
     Bunn
     Bunning
     Burr
     Burton
     Buyer
     Callahan
     Calvert
     Camp
     Canady
     Castle
     Chabot
     Chambliss
     Chenoweth
     Christensen
     Chrysler
     Clinger
     Coble
     Coburn
     Collins (GA)
     Combest
     Cooley
     Cox
     Crane
     Crapo
     Cremeans
     Cubin
     Cunningham
     Davis
     Deal
     DeLay
     Diaz-Balart
     Dickey
     Doolittle
     Dornan
     Dreier
     Duncan
     Dunn
     Ehlers
     Ehrlich
     Emerson
     English
     Ensign
     Ewing
     Fawell
     Flanagan
     Foley
     Forbes
     Fowler
     Fox
     Franks (CT)
     Franks (NJ)
     Frelinghuysen
     Frisa
     Funderburk
     Gallegly
     Ganske
     Gejdenson
     Gekas
     Gilchrest
     Gillmor
     Gilman
     Goodlatte
     Goodling
     Goss
     Greenwood
     Gunderson
     Gutknecht
     Hancock
     Hansen
     Hastert
     Hastings (WA)
     Hayworth
     Hefley
     Heineman
     Herger [[Page H5775]] 
     Hilleary
     Hobson
     Hoekstra
     Hoke
     Horn
     Hostettler
     Houghton
     Hunter
     Hutchinson
     Hyde
     Inglis
     Istook
     Johnson (CT)
     Johnson, Sam
     Jones
     Kasich
     Kelly
     Kennedy (RI)
     Kim
     King
     Kingston
     Knollenberg
     Kolbe
     LaHood
     Latham
     LaTourette
     Laughlin
     Lazio
     Leach
     Lewis (CA)
     Lewis (KY)
     Lightfoot
     Linder
     Livingston
     LoBiondo
     Longley
     Lucas
     Manzullo
     Martini
     McCollum
     McCrery
     McDade
     McHugh
     McInnis
     McIntosh
     McKeon
     Metcalf
     Meyers
     Miller (FL)
     Molinari
     Moorhead
     Morella
     Myers
     Nethercutt
     Neumann
     Ney
     Norwood
     Nussle
     Oxley
     Packard
     Parker
     Paxon
     Petri
     Pombo
     Porter
     Portman
     Pryce
     Quillen
     Quinn
     Radanovich
     Ramstad
     Regula
     Riggs
     Roberts
     Rogers
     Rohrabacher
     Roth
     Roukema
     Royce
     Salmon
     Sanford
     Saxton
     Scarborough
     Schaefer
     Schiff
     Seastrand
     Sensenbrenner
     Shadegg
     Shaw
     Shuster
     Skeen
     Smith (MI)
     Smith (NJ)
     Smith (TX)
     Smith (WA)
     Solomon
     Souder
     Spence
     Stearns
     Stockman
     Stump
     Talent
     Tate
     Taylor (NC)
     Thomas
     Thornberry
     Tiahrt
     Torkildsen
     Torricelli
     Upton
     Vucanovich
     Waldholtz
     Walker
     Walsh
     Wamp
     Watts (OK)
     Weldon (FL)
     Weldon (PA)
     Weller
     White
     Whitfield
     Wicker
     Wolf
     Young (AK)
     Young (FL)
     Zeliff

                               NAYS--191

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

                             NOT VOTING--18

     Brown (CA)
     Collins (MI)
     DeLauro
     Everett
     Fields (TX)
     Gephardt
     Graham
     Johnston
     Kleczka
     Lantos
     Largent
     Mica
     Myrick
     Peterson (MN)
     Ros-Lehtinen
     Towns
     Wilson
     Yates

                              {time}  1342

  Messrs. PICKETT, SPRATT, SKELTON, and GORDON changed their vote from 
``yea'' to ``nay.''
  Messrs. GANSKE, LINDER, PORTER, KIM, GUNDERSON, COX of California, 
and FOLEY changed their vote from ``nay'' to ``yea.''
  So the previous question was ordered.
  The result of the vote was announced as above recorded.
                          personal explanation

  Mr. GRAHAM. Mr. Speaker, on rollcall No. 367, I was with a 
constituent and inadvertently missed the vote. Had I been present, I 
would have voted ``yes.''
  The SPEAKER pro tempore (Mr. Wicker). The question is on the 
amendment offered by the gentleman from New York [Mr. Solomon].
  The amendment was agreed to.
  The SPEAKER pro tempore. The question is on the resolution, as 
amended.
  The question was taken; and the Speaker pro tempore announced that 
the noes appeared to have it.


                             recorded vote

  Mr. SOLOMON. Mr. Speaker, I demand a recorded vote.
  A recorded vote was ordered.
  The SPEAKER pro tempore. This will be a 5-minute vote.
  The vote was taken by electronic device, and there were--ayes 233, 
noes 183, not voting 18, as follows:
                             [Roll No. 368]

                               AYES--233

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

                               NOES--183

     Abercrombie
     Ackerman
     Andrews
     Baesler
     Baldacci
     Barcia
     Barrett (WI)
     Becerra
     Beilenson
     Bentsen
     Berman
     Bevill
     Bishop
     Bonior
     Borski
     Boucher
     Brewster
     Browder
     Brown (FL)
     Brown (OH)
     Bryant (TX)
     Cardin
     Chapman
     Clay
     Clayton
     Clement
     Clyburn
     Coleman
     Collins (IL)
     Condit
     Conyers
     Costello
     Coyne
     Danner
     de la Garza
     DeFazio
     Dellums
     Deutsch
     Dicks
     Dingell
     Dixon
     Doggett
     Dooley
     Durbin
     Edwards
     Engel
     Eshoo
     Evans
     Farr
     Fattah
     Fazio
     Fields (LA)
     Filner
     Flake
     Foglietta
     Ford
     Frank (MA)
     Frost
     Furse
     Ganske
     Geren
     Gibbons
     Gonzalez
     Gordon
     Green
     Gunderson
     Gutierrez
     Hall (OH)
     Hall (TX)
     Hamilton
     Harman
     Hastings (FL)
     Hayes
     Hefner
     Hilliard
     Hinchey
     Holden
     Hoyer
     Jackson-Lee
     Jacobs
     Jefferson
     Johnson (SD)
     Johnson, E.B.
     Kanjorski
     Kaptur
     Kennedy (MA)
     Kennelly
     Kildee
     Klink
     Klug
     LaFalce
     Levin
     Lewis (GA)
     Lincoln
     Lipinski
     Lofgren
     Lowey
     Luther
     Maloney
     Manton
     Markey
     Martinez
     Matsui
     McCarthy
     McDermott
     McHale
     McKinney
     Meehan
     Meek
     Menendez
     Mfume
     Miller (CA)
     Mineta
     Minge
     Mink
     Moakley
     Nadler
     Neal
     Oberstar
     Obey
     Olver
     Ortiz
     Orton
     Owens
     Pallone
     Pastor
     Payne (NJ)
     Payne (VA)
     Pelosi
     Peterson (FL)
     Pomeroy
     Porter
     Portman
     Poshard
     Rahall
     Rangel
     Reed
     Reynolds
     Richardson
     Rivers
     Roemer
     Rose
     Roybal-Allard
     Rush
     Sabo
     Sanders
     Sawyer
     Schroeder
     Schumer
     Serrano [[Page H5776]] 
     Shays
     Skaggs
     Slaughter
     Spratt
     Stark
     Stenholm
     Stokes
     Studds
     Stupak
     Tanner
     Tauzin
     Taylor (MS)
     Tejeda
     Thompson
     Thornton
     Thurman
     Torres
     Torricelli
     Tucker
     Velazquez
     Vento
     Visclosky
     Volkmer
     Ward
     Waters
     Watt (NC)
     Waxman
     Williams
     Wise
     Woolsey
     Wyden
     Wynn
     Zimmer

                             NOT VOTING--18

     Brown (CA)
     Collins (MI)
     DeLauro
     Doyle
     Fields (TX)
     Foley
     Gephardt
     Johnston
     Kleczka
     Lantos
     Largent
     Mascara
     Myrick
     Peterson (MN)
     Ros-Lehtinen
     Towns
     Wilson
     Yates

                              {time}  1352

  Mr. FARR and Mr. TORRES changed their vote from ``aye'' to ``no.''
  So the resolution, as amended, was agreed to.
  The result of the vote was announced as above recorded.
  A motion to reconsider was laid on the table.

                          ____________________