[Congressional Record Volume 141, Number 99 (Friday, June 16, 1995)]
[House]
[Pages H6049-H6056]
From the Congressional Record Online through the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]




             MILITARY CONSTRUCTION APPROPRIATIONS ACT, 1996

  Mr. QUILLEN. Mr. Speaker, by direction of the Committee on Rules, I 
call up House Resolution 167 and ask for its immediate consideration.
  The Clerk read the resolution, as follows:

                              H. Res. 167

       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. 1817) making appropriations for military 
     construction for the Department of Defense for the fiscal 
     year ending September 30, 1996, and for other purposes. 
     The first reading of the bill shall be dispensed with. 
     General debate shall be confined to the bill and shall not 
     exceed one hour equally divided and controlled by the 
     chairman and ranking minority member of the Committee on 
     Appropriations. After general debate the bill shall be 
     considered for amendment under the five-minute rule. 
     Points of order against provisions in the bill for failure 
     to comply with clause 2 or 6 of rule XXI are waived. 
     During consideration of the bill for amendment, the 
     Chairman of the Committee of the Whole may accord priority 
     in recognition on the basis of whether the Member offering 
     an amendment has caused it to be printed in the portion of 
     the Congressional Record designated for that purpose in 
     clause 6 of rule XXIII. Amendments so printed shall be 
     considered as read. 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. The previous question shall be considered as 
     ordered on the bill and amendments thereto to final 
     passage without intervening motion except one motion to 
     recommit.
       Sec. 2. (a) For purposes of sections 302 and 311 of the 
     Congressional Budget Act of 1974 as they apply in the House 
     of Representatives to the Committee on Appropriations and to 
     the consideration of general appropriation bills, amendments 
     thereto, or conference reports thereon, the Congress shall be 
     considered to have adopted House Concurrent Resolution 67 in 
     the form adopted by the House on May 18, 1995.
       (b) The allocations of spending and credit responsibilities 
     to the Committee on Appropriations that are depicted in House 
     Report 104-120, beginning on page 144, shall be considered as 
     the allocations required by section 602(a) of that Act to be 
     included in the joint explanatory statement of the managers 
     on a conference report to accompany a concurrent resolution 
     on the budget.
       (c) This section shall cease to apply upon final adoption 
     by the House and the Senate of a concurrent resolution on the 
     budget for fiscal year 1996.

                              {time}  1020

  The SPEAKER pro tempore (Mr. Burton of Indiana). The gentleman from 
Tennessee [Mr. Quillen] is recognized for 1 hour.
  (Mr. QUILLEN asked and was given permission to include extraneous 
material.)
  Mr. QUILLEN. Mr. Speaker, for the purpose of debate only, I yield the 
customary 30 minutes to the gentleman from Ohio [Mr. Hall], pending 
which I yield myself such time as I may consume. During consideration 
of this resolution, all time yielded is for the purpose of debate only.
  Mr. Speaker, House Resolution 167 is an open rule providing for the 
consideration of H.R. 1817, the Military Construction Appropriations 
Act for Fiscal Year 1996. The rule provides 1 hour of general debate 
divided equally between the chairman and ranking minority member of the 
Committee on Appropriations.
  The rule waives clause 2 of rule XXI, prohibiting unauthorized 
appropriations and legislation in an appropriations bill, and also 
waives clause 6 of rule XXI, prohibiting reappropriations, against 
provisions of the bill.
  Additionally, the rule provides that the spending and credit 
allocations to the Committee on Appropriations contained in the House-
passed budget resolution shall apply for budget act enforcement 
purposes until final adoption of a budget resolution. Under the rule, 
the chair may accord priority in recognition to Members who have 
preprinted their amendments in the Congressional Record. Finally, the 
rule allows one motion to recommit.

  Mr. Speaker, the waivers provided in this rule are necessary since 
the defense authorization bill has not yet become law. I'm not aware of 
any objection to such waivers, and there was bipartisan support for 
this rule by the Appropriations Subcommittee on Military Construction 
and by the Rules Committee.
  Mr. Speaker, this is a special occasion that deserves proper 
recognition. As Members know, our colleague from Nevada, Barbara 
Vucanovich, is the chair of the Appropriations Subcommittee on Military 
Construction. She is the first woman to chair an appropriations 
subcommittee in 40 years. And all I can say, Mr. Speaker, it is about 
time and I cannot think of anyone more deserving of this distinction 
than Mrs. Vucanovich. She has served this Congress with dedication and 
commitment for over 12 years, and she is one of the most highly 
respected Members of the House. I applaud her hard work and bipartisan 
spirit in working together with the ranking minority member, Bill 
Hefner, in bringing forward this first of the 13 appropriation bills. 
They did an outstanding job of addressing the important housing needs, 
base realignment and closure costs, and construction requirements of 
the military.
  Mr. Speaker, it is estimated that about one-eighth of all military 
families living off-base reside in substandard housing. Additionally, 
more than one-half of the on-base family housing units are unsuitable 
and in need of significant repair. We've all heard stories of military 
families whose standard of living is so low they qualify for food 
stamps. This is deplorable, and we have an obligation to ensure an 
adequate lifestyle for those patriotic, dedicated men and women who 
have chosen to serve this country and are willing to put their lives on 
the line to defend America.
  About 72 percent of the projects in this bill are for the 
construction of new barracks, family housing, and child development 
centers--money well spent in my opinion.
  Mr. Speaker, this open rule will allow all Members to fully 
participate in the amendment process, and I urge its adoption.
  Mr. Speaker, I submit the following materials for the Record:


[[Page H6050]]
  THE AMENDMENT PROCESS UNDER SPECIAL RULES REPORTED BY THE RULES COMMITTEE,\1\ 103D CONGRESS V. 104TH CONGRESS 
                                              [As of June 15, 1995]                                             
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                                  103d Congress                        104th Congress           
              Rule type              ---------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                       Number of rules    Percent of total   Number of rules    Percent of total
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Open/Modified-open\2\...............                 46                 44                 29                 74
Modified Closed\3\..................                 49                 47                 10                 26
Closed\4\...........................                  9                  9                  0                  0
                                     ---------------------------------------------------------------------------
      Totals:.......................                104                100                 39                100
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
\1\This table applies only to rules which provide for the original consideration of bills, joint resolutions or 
  budget resolutions and which provide for an amendment process. It does not apply to special rules which only  
  waive points of order against appropriations bills which are already privileged and are considered under an   
  open amendment process under House rules.                                                                     
\2\An open rule is one under which any Member may offer a germane amendment under the five-minute rule. A       
  modified open rule is one under which any Member may offer a germane amendment under the five-minute rule     
  subject only to an overall time limit on the amendment process and/or a requirement that the amendment be     
  preprinted in the Congressional Record.                                                                       
\3\A modified closed rule is one under which the Rules Committee limits the amendments that may be offered only 
  to those amendments designated in the special rule or the Rules Committee report to accompany it, or which    
  preclude amendments to a particular portion of a bill, even though the rest of the bill may be completely open
  to amendment.                                                                                                 
\4\A closed rule is one under which no amendments may be offered (other than amendments recommended by the      
  committee in reporting the bill).                                                                             



                          SPECIAL RULES REPORTED BY THE RULES COMMITTEE, 104TH CONGRESS                         
                                              [As of June 15, 1995]                                             
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                                                                                 Disposition of 
    H. Res. No. (Date rept.)         Rule type           Bill No.              Subject                rule      
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
H. Res. 38 (1/18/95)...........  O................  H.R. 5...........  Unfunded Mandate        A: 350-71 (1/19/ 
                                                                        Reform.                 95).            
H. Res. 44 (1/24/95)...........  MC...............  H. Con. Res. 17..  Social Security.......  A: 255-172 (1/25/
                                                    H.J. Res. 1......  Balanced Budget Amdt..   95).            
H. Res. 51 (1/31/95)...........  O................  H.R. 101.........  Land Transfer, Taos     A: voice vote (2/
                                                                        Pueblo Indians.         1/95).          
H. Res. 52 (1/31/95)...........  O................  H.R. 400.........  Land Exchange, Arctic   A: voice vote (2/
                                                                        Nat'l. Park and         1/95).          
                                                                        Preserve.                               
H. Res. 53 (1/31/95)...........  O................  H.R. 440.........  Land Conveyance, Butte  A: voice vote (2/
                                                                        County, Calif.          1/95).          
H. Res. 55 (2/1/95)............  O................  H.R. 2...........  Line Item Veto........  A: voice vote (2/
                                                                                                2/95).          
H. Res. 60 (2/6/95)............  O................  H.R. 665.........  Victim Restitution....  A: voice vote (2/
                                                                                                7/95).          
H. Res. 61 (2/6/95)............  O................  H.R. 666.........  Exclusionary Rule       A: voice vote (2/
                                                                        Reform.                 7/95).          
H. Res. 63 (2/8/95)............  MO...............  H.R. 667.........  Violent Criminal        A: voice vote (2/
                                                                        Incarceration.          9/95).          
H. Res. 69 (2/9/95)............  O................  H.R. 668.........  Criminal Alien          A: voice vote (2/
                                                                        Deportation.            10/95).         
H. Res. 79 (2/10/95)...........  MO...............  H.R. 728.........  Law Enforcement Block   A: voice vote (2/
                                                                        Grants.                 13/95).         
H. Res. 83 (2/13/95)...........  MO...............  H.R. 7...........  National Security       PQ: 229-100; A:  
                                                                        Revitalization.         227-127 (2/15/  
                                                                                                95).            
H. Res. 88 (2/16/95)...........  MC...............  H.R. 831.........  Health Insurance        PQ: 230-191; A:  
                                                                        Deductibility.          229-188 (2/21/  
                                                                                                95).            
H. Res. 91 (2/21/95)...........  O................  H.R. 830.........  Paperwork Reduction     A: voice vote (2/
                                                                        Act.                    22/95).         
H. Res. 92 (2/21/95)...........  MC...............  H.R. 889.........  Defense Supplemental..  A: 282-144 (2/22/
                                                                                                95).            
H. Res. 93 (2/22/95)...........  MO...............  H.R. 450.........  Regulatory Transition   A: 252-175 (2/23/
                                                                        Act.                    95).            
H. Res. 96 (2/24/95)...........  MO...............  H.R. 1022........  Risk Assessment.......  A: 253-165 (2/27/
                                                                                                95).            
H. Res. 100 (2/27/95)..........  O................  H.R. 926.........  Regulatory Reform and   A: voice vote (2/
                                                                        Relief Act.             28/95).         
H. Res. 101 (2/28/95)..........  MO...............  H.R. 925.........  Private Property        A: 271-151 (3/2/ 
                                                                        Protection Act.         95).            
H. Res. 104 (3/3/95)...........  MO...............  H.R. 988.........  Attorney                A: voice vote (3/
                                                                        Accountability Act.     6/95).          
H. Res. 103 (3/3/95)...........  MO...............  H.R. 1058........  Securities Litigation   .................
                                                                        Reform.                                 
H. Res. 105 (3/6/95)...........  MO...............  .................  ......................  A: 257-155 (3/7/ 
                                                                                                95).            
H. Res. 108 (3/7/95)...........  Debate...........  H.R. 956.........  Product Liability       A: voice vote (3/
                                                                        Reform.                 8/95).          
H. Res. 109 (3/8/95)...........  MC...............  .................  ......................  PQ: 234-191 A:   
                                                                                                247-181 (3/9/   
                                                                                                95).            
H. Res. 115 (3/14/95)..........  MO...............  H.R. 1159........  Making Emergency Supp.  A: 242-190 (3/15/
                                                                        Approps..               95).            
H. Res. 116 (3/15/95)..........  MC...............  H.J. Res. 73.....  Term Limits Const.      A: voice vote (3/
                                                                        Amdt.                   28/95).         
H. Res. 117 (3/16/95)..........  Debate...........  H.R. 4...........  Personal                A: voice vote (3/
                                                                        Responsibility Act of   21/95).         
                                                                        1995.                                   
H. Res. 119 (3/21/95)..........  MC...............  .................  ......................  A: 217-211 (3/22/
                                                                                                95).            
H. Res. 125 (4/3/95)...........  O................  H.R. 1271........  Family Privacy          A: 423-1 (4/4/   
                                                                        Protection Act.         95).            
H. Res. 126 (4/3/95)...........  O................  H.R. 660.........  Older Persons Housing   A: voice vote (4/
                                                                        Act.                    6/95).          
H. Res. 128 (4/4/95)...........  MC...............  H.R. 1215........  Contract With America   A: 228-204 (4/5/ 
                                                                        Tax Relief Act of       95).            
                                                                        1995.                                   
H. Res. 130 (4/5/95)...........  MC...............  H.R. 483.........  Medicare Select          A: 253-172 (4/6/
                                                                        Expansion.              95).            
H. Res. 136 (5/1/95)...........  O................  H.R. 655.........  Hydrogen Future Act of  A: voice vote (5/
                                                                        1995.                   2/95).          
H. Res. 139 (5/3/95)...........  O................  H.R. 1361........  Coast Guard Auth. FY    A: voice vote (5/
                                                                        1996.                   9/95).          
H. Res. 140 (5/9/95)...........  O................  H.R. 961.........  Clean Water Amendments  A: 414-4 (5/10/  
                                                                                                95).            
H. Res. 144 (5/11/95)..........  O................  H.R. 535.........  Fish Hatchery--         A: voice vote (5/
                                                                        Arkansas.               15/95).         
H. Res. 145 (5/11/95)..........  O................  H.R. 584.........  Fish Hatchery--Iowa...  A: voice vote (5/
                                                                                                15/95).         
H. Res. 146 (5/11/95)..........  O................  H.R. 614.........  Fish Hatchery--         A: voice vote (5/
                                                                        Minnesota.              15/95).         
H. Res. 149 (5/16/95)..........  MC...............  H. Con. Res. 67..  Budget Resolution FY    PQ: 252-170 A:   
                                                                        1996.                   255-168 (5/17/  
                                                                                                95).            
H. Res. 155 (5/22/95)..........  MO...............  H.R. 1561........  American Overseas       A: 233-176 (5/23/
                                                                        Interests Act.          95).            
H. Res. 164 (6/8/95)...........  MC...............  H.R. 1530........  Natl. Defense Auth. FY  PQ: 225-191 A:   
                                                                        1996.                   233-183 (6/13/  
                                                                                                95).            
H. Res. 167 (6/15/95)..........  O................  H.R. 1517........  MilCon Appropriations   .................
                                                                        FY 1996.                                
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Codes: O-open rule; MO-modified open rule; MC-modified closed rule; C-closed rule; A-adoption vote; PQ-previous 
  question vote. Source: Notices of Action Taken, Committee on Rules, 104th Congress.                           

  Mr. Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.
  Mr. HALL of Ohio. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I many 
consume.
  (Mr. HALL of Ohio asked and was given permission to revise and extend 
his remarks.)
  Mr. HALL of Ohio. Mr. Speaker, as my colleague has described, House 
Resolution 167 is the rule waiving points of order against provisions 
of the bill, H.R. 1817, the Military Construction Appropriations Act 
for Fiscal Year 1996. The rule is essentially an open rule with 1 hour 
of general debate. If does provide waivers of clause 2 of rule XXI to 
allow unauthorized appropriations in the bill, as well as clause 6 of 
rule XXI prohibiting reappropriations. It also provides that figures in 
the House-passed budget resolution shall apply until final adoption of 
the budget resolution. There was no substantial opposition to these 
provisions from witnesses in yesterday's Rules Committee hearing.
  In the Rules Committee hearing, however, Representatives Brewster and 
Harman did request an amendment known as the deficit reduction lockbox 
amendment. This would have allowed any savings obtained through floor 
votes to go into a special deficit reduction trust fund. Given the 
interest that many of us have in deficit reduction, I believe the Rules 
Committee should have made the Brewster-Harman amendment in order. Our 
ranking minority member, Representative Joe Moakley, did offer the 
lockbox measure as an amendment to the rule. However, it unfortunately 
lost 8 to 3, with no Republican support.
  Mr. Speaker, this bill appropriates approximately $11.2 billion for 
fiscal year 1996 for military construction, family housing, and base 
realignments and closures for the Department of Defense. The bill 
appropriates approximately $4.3 billion for family housing, $3.89 
billion for base realignment and closure costs, $2.8 billion for 
military construction, and $161 million for NATO security.
  Also included in the bill is approximately $18.5 million in funding 
for several projects at Wright-Patterson Air Force Base, which is 
partially located in my congressional district. I am pleased that the 
committee approved these funds which will continue several projects, 
including an electrical upgrade at the base. Mr. Speaker, these 
projects are important to Wright-Patterson Air Force Base, and to the 
community of Dayton, OH, which has been a world leader in aviation 
since the days of the Wright brothers. I commend my colleagues for 
including them.
  Mr. Speaker, under the normal rules of the House, any amendment which 
does not violate any House rules could be offered to H.R. 1817. The 
rule was passed out of the House Rules Committee by voice vote, and I 
urge my colleagues to adopt it.
  Mr. QUILLEN. Mr. Speaker, I yield such time as he may consume to the 

[[Page H6051]]
  distinguished gentleman from New York [Mr. Solomon], the chairman of 
the Committee on Rules.
  Mr. SOLOMON. Mr. Speaker, I thank the chairman emeritus for yielding 
me the time. The rule certainly has been adequately explained by both 
the gentleman from Tennessee [Mr. Quillen] and the gentleman from Ohio 
[Mr. Hall], so I will not get into that. I will speak to the bill 
itself.
  Mr. Speaker, the military construction bill this rule makes in order 
will have a major impact on the morale and the quality of life of our 
young men and women who serve in our military today, and that is so 
critically important in maintaining a high quality of recruits, 
especially when we have to depend on an all-voluntary military as we do 
today.
  We presently face a seriously worsening situation with respect to 
military housing, and this is a problem that simply must be solved if 
we are going to keep these young men and women in the service.
  We cannot hope to recruit and then retain a high-caliber all-
volunteer force if our service men and women are consigned to live in 
housing that we would not let our own families live in. This is how bad 
it is.
  An estimated one-eighth of all military families residing off-base 
today are living in substandard housing, and that is terrible. More 
than half of all of our on-base family housing units are considered 
unsuitable and in need of significant repair.

  Mr. Speaker, these are shocking and absolutely unacceptable 
conditions. I am pleased to note that funding in this bill for family 
housing is up 23 percent over last year. We found the money. This is so 
vital for the 60 percent of our service personnel who are married.
  I am pleased to see that this bill provides the seed money for a 5-
year pilot project involving the private sector to replace or renovate 
most or all of the on-base family housing units that are in dire need 
of repair today.
  With Armed Forces composed entirely of volunteers, we find that our 
military personnel are staying in the service longer, they are marrying 
while in service, many of them are trying to raise families, and that 
is the way it should be.
  There is an increase in this bill for the building and renovating of 
barracks that are used by our military personnel who are not married. 
This situation also needs to be addressed, because half of all existing 
barracks today are 30, 40, 50, and even 60 years old, and they are in a 
deplorable condition. We have a deficit on top of that of 160,000 
barracks spaces to provide for quarters for these people.
  So, I am just really grateful for the many good and necessary 
improvements made in this bill. I want to thank the gentlewoman from 
Nevada [Mrs. Vucanovich] and all of the members of her subcommittee for 
bringing a really quality product to the floor today. The investment we 
make today to improve the quality of life for our military personnel 
will pay off in the future, because we will find it much easier to 
recruit and retain and keep these good people that are serving us.
  Having said all of that, I just want to again repeat what my good 
friend, the gentleman from Tennessee [Mr. Quillen], said about the 
gentlewoman from Nevada [Mrs. Vucanovich]. In bringing the military 
construction bill to the floor this week, my good friend from Nevada, 
who was formerly from my area up in upstate New York, the gentlewoman 
from Nevada, will become the first women in 40 years to manage an 
appropriations bill in the House of Representatives. That is 
significant.
  And as best as the staff of the Committee on Appropriations can tell, 
she will be only the second woman in the entire history of the House to 
have that responsibility. So, we salute the gentlewoman, let her come 
down here, and let us get this good bill going.
  Mr. HALL of Ohio. Mr. Speaker, I yield 7 minutes to the gentleman 
from Wisconsin [Mr. Obey].
  Mr. OBEY. Mr. Speaker, I rise in very strong opposition to this rule 
for a variety of reasons, starting with the fact that this bill itself 
is unbelievably $2.5 billion above last year, even while we are told 
that we have to reach a balanced budget which requires us to cut most 
programs in the budget over a 7-year period by about 30 percent.
  It is to me incredibly irresponsible to be suggesting that we can 
raise any appropriation bill by more than 20 percent in a single year, 
given the budget squeeze we are facing.
  But I think there is an even more basic reason to oppose this rule 
and that is because this rule would, in its passage, have it deemed 
that we had already passed the budget resolution when in fact that is 
not the case.
  This bill is coming to the floor 2 weeks after the first 
appropriation bill came to the floor last year. There is still no 
budget which has been adopted by the majority party. This is the latest 
in 10 years that the Congress has been without the adoption of a 
budget.
  Because we are still not operating under a budget, this rule would 
have the House, in essence, declare that it is simply the House budget 
resolution which is going to govern the appropriation process for the 
rest of the year, when we know full well that that resolution is going 
to have to be compromised with the Senate and a different set of 
numbers will be reached.

  An added problem is that the budget priorities under which we are 
acting, and under which this bill is brought to the floor, are in fact 
grossly warped. While this bill is going to be $2.5 billion above last 
year, the Labor-Health-Education appropriation bill will be about $10 
billion below last year, cutting a $70 billion bill to $60 billion.
  You will see a savaging of the Low-Income Heating Assistance Program. 
You will see a merciless squeezing of job training programs, of health 
appropriations, including a potentially very large squeeze on the 
National Institutes of Health. It just seems to me that that is an 
incredibly warped set of priorities.
  I tried in the full Committee on Appropriations to get a different 
set of 602 allocations adopted for the subcommittee so that we could 
produce a different set of priorities. Instead of the outlandishly high 
military budget which is being enforced under this process, I suggested 
we simply go to what I would call Domenici-plus-one, which would say 
that we would limit defense expenditures to $1 billion above that 
provided in the Senate budget resolution. That is hardly a left-wing 
proposition.
  That level was supported by a number of well-known conservatives in 
the Senate who I would name if House rules allowed me to; conservatives 
in both parties. It would have allowed us, by limiting that defense 
expenditure to those levels, to provide $900 million in additional 
support for law enforcement programs under Commerce-Justice, it would 
have allowed us to provide $1 billion more for highway construction 
that will be allowed under the proposal which was presented by the 
majority.
  We would be allowed to provide $2 billion more to the VA-HUD bill to 
protect veterans' medical services and to help low-income seniors who 
otherwise are going to be clobbered in housing budgets.
  It would have allowed $100 million more to be used to toughen 
immigration enforcement. It would have allowed a saving of about a 
half-billion dollars on the squeeze that will otherwise be put in 
national parks, and it would have allowed us to reduce the incredible 
reductions which are going to be forced on student assistance, on 
biomedical research, and grants to local school districts and fuel-
assistance programs as I indicated.
  But because this resolution deems us to be operating under the House 
budget resolution, and because under that House budget resolution these 
warped set of priorities have been adopted, we cannot proceed to 
produce a more balanced set of appropriation bills if we proceed under 
this approach.
  I want to make clear, I am not talking about spending one additional 
dime above the spending levels suggested by the Republican Party, by 
the majority party. What I am suggesting is that the way the dollars 
are allocated under the ceiling which we are all going to have to live 
with is grossly warped and this resolution, by deeming us to be 
operating under that procedure, simply guarantees that we cannot make 
any improvements in the situation.
  I do not think we ought to do that. I think this rule ought to be 
defeated so that the entire proposal can be recommitted to the 
Committee on Appropriations so that the committee can produce a 
different set of numbers which provide a greater sense of mercy and 
justice for working families who 

[[Page H6052]]
are trying to help their kids go through school, for families who have 
health problems, for workers who need retraining, rather than sticking 
to the spending priorities which we are going to be required to stick 
to under this proposal.

                              {time}  1040

  So I would urge you to defeat the previous question on the rule, 
defeat the rule, send this whole proposition back to the Committee on 
Appropriations so we can produce a much more balanced set of spending 
priorities in a very tight fiscal year.
  Mr. HALL of Ohio. Mr. Speaker, I yield 4 minutes to the gentleman 
from Virginia [Mr. Moran].
  Mr. MORAN. Mr. Speaker, this rule makes in order an amendment to cut 
out what is a relatively small amount of money to purchase land for the 
construction of the U.S. Army Museum.
  Now, if this were another time, if we were not all so much aware of 
the fiscal realities, the Army would have gone about this in the way 
that the other armed services have and, in fact, every other nation 
has, and build it with public funds. But the Army is not asking for 
public funds to build the U.S. Army Museum. The museum is going to cost 
about $72 million, and the Army is going to raise that through private 
donations. That is the kind of thing we have been encouraging the 
public sector to do, not to spend any money that is not absolutely 
necessary.
  The small amount of money, however, that is in this appropriations 
bill, and we appreciate the fact that the chairperson of the 
appropriations bill, the gentlewoman from Nevada [Mrs. Vucanovich], 
included it, is necessary because we cannot possibly raise enough money 
to purchase the land immediately and it has to be purchased 
immediately. Equitable Real Estate, that owns it, has plans to develop 
two highrise office buildings on this site.
  Now, let me describe where it is because all of you have seen this 
site. It is on the gateway to Washington, DC. It is kitty-corner to the 
Jefferson Memorial, across the river, and it is on a line between the 
Washington Monument, the Jefferson Memorial, and what would be the Army 
Museum. It is a small piece of land, just to the east of the 14th 
Street Bridge. Everyone will see it as they enter Washington.
  The small amount of money that is necessary will enable us to 
purchase this land at a very reasonable cost, and then the Army will go 
about raising money for the museum.
  The Army has about 500,000 artifacts to show. Most of them are 
warehoused. Nobody can see them. Many of them are priceless. The Army 
has a story to tell, the history of the United States, how the Army 
secured this Nation's liberty through war and sustained it through 
preparation for war in a responsible manner, and all of those junctures 
where the Army made major decisions are going to be highlighted in this 
museum. It will have an inestimable value for the esprit de corps, not 
just of the Army but of all the armed services.
  And we know that there will be 20 million American citizens who will 
be visiting this museum every year. It has perpetual value. That is why 
this small amount of money is very important, and it is important that 
we include it in an appropriations bill, not vote for the amendment 
that would eliminate it.
  Mr. SKELTON. Mr. Speaker, will the gentleman yield?
  Mr. MORAN. I yield to the gentleman from Missouri.
  Mr. SKELTON. I certainly agree with your position on the Army Museum. 
As a matter of fact, it is only an appropriation to buy the land 
because all else is going to be built by donations. Is that not 
correct?
  Mr. MORAN. That is correct, I say to the gentleman from Missouri [Mr. 
Skelton].
  Mr. SKELTON. Is it not also correct that all of the other services 
have a national type of museum but the U.S. Army does not?
  Mr. MORAN. They do. And it is ironic that the Army has the most to 
show, things dating back to the Revolutionary War, the Civil War, the 
War of 1812, unbelievable things that this country has no awareness of 
the fact that we have these and would like to show them to the public.
  Mr. SKELTON. I certainly agree and compliment you on your position.
  Mr. HALL of Ohio. Mr. Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman 
from Oklahoma [Mr. Brewster].
  (Mr. BREWSTER asked and was given permission to revise and extend his 
remarks.)
  Mr. BREWSTER. Mr. Speaker, I rise today in strong opposition to this 
rule and would urge my deficit hawk colleagues to oppose this rule as 
well.
  There has been much discussion in this Chamber about the importance 
of deficit reduction and balancing the budget. Mr. Speaker, this House 
needs to put its money where its mouth is.
  This rule restricts the Brewster-Harman lockbox amendment, which 
would guarantee all savings achieved from cuts in this bill would go 
solely for deficit reduction--savings could not be used for additional 
spending.
  Mr. Speaker, if this House votes to cut a program on the floor, then 
I feel--as I think a majority of this House feels--that those savings 
should go only to deficit reduction, not be spent somewhere else. The 
Brewster-Harman lockbox amendment would guarantee this savings.
  Only a few months ago, this House overwhelmingly voted to pass the 
lockbox amendment, 418 to 5. With that kind of support, Mr. Speaker, I 
am disappointed the Rules Committee did not continue the commitment of 
deficit reduction. Instead, they restricted the Brewster-Harman lockbox 
from this bill.
  This is the first of 13 appropriations bills to come to the House 
floor this year. We must not wait any longer by letting millions of 
discretionary dollars slip into the wasteland of Federal spending. Let 
us make our cuts count.
  Vote ``no'' on this rule, and let us send H.R. 1817 back to the Rules 
Committee and make the Brewster-Harman lockbox in order.
  Mr. HALL of Ohio. Mr. Speaker, I yield 3 minutes to the gentlewoman 
from California [Ms. Harman].
  (Ms. HARMAN asked and was given permission to revise and extend her 
remarks.)
  Ms. HARMAN. Deficit hawks listen up: I am the Harman of Brewster-
Harman, and this is the vote you have been waiting for.
  By excluding the lockbox, the Committee on Rules is telling us that 
on the first appropriations bill of the season we are not prepared, let 
me repeat, not prepared, to force cuts to go to deficit reduction.
  A little later today we are going to consider at least two cuts to 
this bill. Should they pass, I am telling your now that without the 
lockbox, they will not, hear me, not go to deficit reduction.
  Why not? The answer is that the appropriators, both sides, and this 
is not a partisan claim, do not want to lose the ability to use saved 
money for other pet projects.
  Let me explain how the lockbox, which an overwhelming majority of 
this House has already supported, works. It works this way: If we cut 
money from an appropriations bill and we do not at the same time on the 
public record reprogram it to something else, that money automatically 
goes into what we call a lockbox. When the House passes its bill, the 
lockbox contains our cuts. When the Senate passes its bill, the lockbox 
contains the Senate's cuts. And then in conference the conferees are 
limited, limited by this mechanism to coming up with a bottom-line 
figure that is somewhere between the House and the Senate cuts. In 
other words, the money cut cannot be reprogrammed. They money cut goes 
to deficit reduction.
  This concept is overwhelmingly popular out in the land and, in fact, 
it is probably a better mechanism, or at least a faster mechanism, than 
the balanced budget amendment because it goes into effect immediately 
with enactment of the appropriations bill.
  And I say that as a strong supporter in this Congress, and in the 
last Congress, of the balanced budget amendment.
  Let me conclude by saying this: Casting tough votes means casting 
votes that could hurt at home, and this is the case for me. Most people 
here know, and I always say it, I represent the aerospace center of the 
universe, California's 36th Congressional District. I am a strong 
defense hawk. I spoke for and voted for the plus-ups in the defense 
budget because I believe in them. 

[[Page H6053]]
I certainly believe in spending on military construction.
  But I also believe in two other things, and they are relevant today. 
One is candor. If we are serious about cutting the deficit, let us do 
it. And the second one is making sure that when I stand here and say 
that something really is deficit reduction, it really is.
  And so I tell my constituents right now that by doing this, by voting 
against this rule and by voting against this bill, I am fighting for 
you because I am fighting for deficit reduction and candor in this 
House.
  Mr. HALL of Ohio. Mr. Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman 
from Missouri [Mr. Volkmer].
  (Mr. VOLKMER asked and was given permission to revise and extend his 
remarks.)
  Mr. VOLKMER. Mr. Speaker, Members of the House, I rise in strong 
opposition not only to the rule but to this bill, and I say, ``Wake up, 
America. Stay tuned America,'' because under this bill and the next 
defense appropriation bill, we are going to spend a whole bunch of 
money. We are going to have increases in that spending, and at the same 
time, under the Republican budget, you are going to see cuts, drastic 
cuts, radical cuts in Medicare for our senior citizens. We are going to 
see programs such as the heating assistance for the poor in my district 
cut out completely, but we are going to see, like I said, spending 
increases in defense.
  There is no shared sacrifice here. The reasons that you have to cut 
the Medicare as they cut Medicare is not only the defense increases but 
also because they have in their budget a big tax break for the wealthy, 
a $20,000 tax break, $20,000 a year for people making over $250,000. 
That is not strengthening Medicare. That is not improving Medicare. 
That is not making Medicare any better. That is making it harder on my 
senior citizens, my rural hospitals.
  I have got rural hospitals out there that right now estimate that it 
is going to be over a million-dollar loss in revenue to them by the end 
of this century just because you can give tax breaks to the wealthy and 
you can increase defense spending.
  Mr. Speaker, I strongly oppose this movement of the Republican 
radical majority in order to take it out of the hides of the elderly 
and give it to our defense spending and to the wealthy.
  For that reason, I oppose the rule, and I oppose the bill.
  Mr. HALL of Ohio. Mr. Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman 
from Alabama [Mr. Browder].
  Mr. BROWDER. Mr. Speaker, I am concerned about this rule because it 
does not allow the lockbox. It does not allow us to vote on the 
lockbox.
  I am concerned about that because I have an amendment which would 
delete $14 million from this bill which would go to build or to 
purchase land here in Washington, DC, for another Army Museum. This is 
another.
  Another Army Museum, folks, would be the 49th Army Museum in this 
country. I cannot understand why we want to build a 49th museum right 
here in Washington when we have got American men and women who are 
needing training, who have family housing that is just unacceptable.
  I think too many people have been talking to the generals and the 
brass, and they ought to get out there and talk to the men and women 
who serve in this Army and they ought to talk to the American taxpayer.
  Mr. Speaker, I just think it is a shame, and I cannot wait for us to 
vote on the cutting of the money for the Army Museum, but I sure wish 
it was being locked into deficit reduction or could be sent somewhere 
else, like family housing.
  Mr. HALL of Ohio. Mr. Speaker, I yield 3 minutes to the gentleman 
from Ohio [Mr. Traficant].
  (Mr. TRAFICANT asked and was given permission to revise and extend 
his remarks.)
  Mr. TRAFICANT. Mr. Speaker, I am going to vote with my distinguished 
chairman, the gentleman from Ohio [Mr. Hall], on the previous question, 
but that is not because I am opposed to this rule. I want to commend 
the chairman. I will support the rule, and I will give the procedural 
vote to my party.
  But I want to say this: Pigs get fat, hogs get slaughtered.
  There is a way to go about this business in this whole process, and I 
want to thank the Committee on Appropriations for funding the three 
projects I had requested at the Air Force base, reserve base in Vienna, 
OH, to my ranking member, the gentleman from North Carolina [Mr. 
Hefner], and all the chairmen responsible, the gentlewoman from Nevada 
[Mrs. Vucanovich], thank you, but you see, I did it the right way. I 
requested it. And then it was evaluated, and then it was scrutinized, 
justified, then it was authorized, and then it went to the 
appropriators, and I showed that process, and I showed the importance 
of it and the merit of it, and it was funded.
  And the process can work if we first authorize, justify, scrutinize.
  And I am going to support this bill. As long as the appropriators are 
including those issues that are properly addressed through the 
authorizing process, you will have my vote.
  I appreciate that, and I want to thank the chairman from Ohio for 
giving me the time.
  Mr. QUILLEN. Mr. Speaker, I yield such time as he may consume to the 
gentleman from New York [Mr. Solomon], the distinguished chairman of 
the Committee on Rules.
  Mr. SOLOMON. Mr. Speaker, I hesitate to stand up and speak right now 
because I am so agitated.
  But, you know, I hear all of these new-found deficit hawks up here 
talking. And I have the National Taxpayers Union ratings here for the 
last 16 years, and I guess we know who the deficit hawks are and who 
are not. I do not have much faith in new deficit hawks because if they 
were really deficit hawks, they would be up here voting for cuts day in 
and day out, like you do, Mr. Acting Speaker.
  As a matter of fact, later this afternoon I am going to be 
introducing a piece of legislation that is about as thick as my 
briefcase is here. It is $840 billion in spending cuts, and I am 
telling you it cuts just about everything and it brings the deficit 
under control that is killing this country, that is literally ruining 
the country.
  We are going to give this, this bill which is this thick, we are 
going to give it to all of the appropriators and to any other of the 
435 Members. They can take little pieces of the bills as these 
appropriations bills come down and all of the other bills and the 
reconciliation, and they can take it, you can, Mr. Speaker, or I can, 
anyone can take one little section. It is all there in legislative 
language, so all Members have got to do is come to me or come to the 
bill drafting office, and they have it there for you. They will give it 
to you, the specific amendment you want.
  So the point is, let us see who the real deficit hawks are.
  Now, I happen to support the Army Museum because it is a small amount 
of money. Somebody said, ``Well, $14 million is not a small amount of 
money.'' But it is because it is the seed money which will bring the 
Army Museum about.
  I do not see amendments up here wiping out the Korean War Memorial. 
We are going to have an opening on April 27. We are going to have those 
who served in the military during the Korean war. We are going to have 
them coming to Washington. It is going to be a great day because we are 
going to honor those Korean war veterans. I did not serve in combat 
myself. I served in the United States Marine Corps during that period 
of time. It is going to be so gratifying to see that war memorial 
finished for those veterans who did, especially for the lives lost 
there.
  All of these artifacts that the Army has, my good friend, the 
gentleman from Virginia [Mr. Moran] was talking about, what is wrong 
with having a museum for the people who served, whether in World War I 
or World War II or the Korean war or the Vietnam war? Why can they not 
have a place to come? I think it is terribly important.
  The bill also then allows for the volunteers to come out and raise 
money, like we did for the Korean War Memorial, like we did there.
  I am going to tell you one thing: I hope no Republican votes for that 
cut when it is offered by the gentleman from Alabama [Mr. Browder] or 
anybody else. I expect them to let that bill pass and let us get that 
war memorial built.
  Mr. BROWDER. Mr. Speaker, will the gentleman yield?
  Mr. SOLOMON. I yield to the gentleman from Alabama.
  
[[Page H6054]]

  Mr. BROWDER. Would my friend tell me, do you know whether the 
Citizens Against Government Waste favor that expenditure for these, for 
this Army Museum, or oppose it, the Citizens Against Government Waste?
  Mr. SOLOMON. I have got their ratings for however long they have been 
in effect. Yes, you are right, they do, and maybe the National 
Taxpayers Union. But sometimes they flake off, you know, too. They do 
it sometimes on some of these silly environmental laws sometimes. We 
know where this thing stands.
  I want every Republican to come to this floor and vote against the 
Browder amendment, and I hope some good Democrats over there do, too. I 
know a few that will.
  Mr. BROWDER. I thank the gentleman for admitting that the Citizens 
Against Government Waste are opposed to this museum.
  Mr. SOLOMON. Now let me make one more point. We are trying to leave 
here by 2 o'clock at the request of all of the family-friendly Members, 
as my colleagues know. Where is my good friend, the gentleman from 
Indiana [Mr. Roemer]? He is up here every Friday wanting us to be 
family friendly, and we want to be. We are trying to get out of here at 
2 o'clock this afternoon because there are a lot of Members who really 
need to go home this weekend to talk about Medicare and other things to 
their senior citizens. They are going to miss those planes if we go 
much longer.
  Now there is a previous question coming on something called the 
lockbox. Now I happen to be a strong supporter of the lockbox, but the 
truth of the matter is, if we allow that amendment to go through today, 
it would be knocked out on a point of order even if the previous 
question is defeated, even if it is defeated. So it is a wasted vote. 
My colleagues would be wasting the time of the Democrats and the 
Republicans.
  I say to my colleagues, If you don't like the way the rule is 
written, it's an open rule. Any Member can offer any kind of germane 
amendment that he wants if you don't like that, then vote against the 
rule. That's your prerogative, but don't waste the body's time with 
this previous question that's going to add another 35 to 40 minutes to 
the debate today, and all of these Members are not going to be able to 
get home on time for the weekend and do those kinds of things for their 
constituents.
  So I would urge my colleagues, please support the previous question 
and vote how you want to on the rule. That's your prerogative.
  Mr. MONTGOMERY. Mr. Speaker, will the gentleman yield?
  Mr. SOLOMON. I yield to the former chairman of the Committee on 
Veterans' Affairs, a great American, the gentleman from Mississippi 
[Mr. Montgomery].
  Mr. MONTGOMERY. Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentleman very much, and, 
about the Browder amendment, it should be pointed up in this war museum 
that the gentleman from Alabama is trying to eliminate there will be a 
section in there honoring the National Guard and Reserve, and I point 
out that in World War II, the 29th Division, it was a National Guard 
division, that 2,000 young men, National Guardsmen, lost their lives 
landing at Omaha Beach, and they will be honored in this museum, and 
they ought to know that, and I appreciate the gentleman yielding to me.
  Mr. SOLOMON. Well, they most certainly will, and when that museum 
opens, I want to go with the gentleman to be the first ones to visit.
  Mr. DAVIS. Mr. Speaker, will the gentleman yield?
  Mr. MONTGOMERY. I yield to my very good friend, the gentleman from 
Virginia [Mr. Davis].
  Mr. DAVIS. Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentleman from New York [Mr. 
Solomon] for yielding.
  Let me just ask my colleagues from New York on the Browder amendment: 
Isn't it true we're going to get over $5 in contributions for every 
dollar we invest in this museum?
  Mr. SOLOMON. Absolutely, because the American people live by the 
words ``pride, patriotism and volunteerism.'' The gentleman is 
absolutely right.
  Mr. DAVIS. And I understand there are over 500,000 artifacts sitting 
out there now, and some of these, frankly, face the fact that they 
could be lost over time if we do not find a permanent place for them.
  Mr. SOLOMON. They could be lost, and also they could deteriorate and 
be destroyed.
  Mr. DAVIS. And I guess the last question to ask is: The particular 
piece of property that we have in mind is, of course, adjacent to the 
Capitol and Arlington Cemetery in those areas, but we may lose this 
piece if we don't act within this next year; isn't that correct?
  Mr. SOLOMON. it could very well be so. We almost even did not get the 
space for the Korean War Memorial.
  Mr. DAVIS. Well, I plan to join the gentleman from New York [Mr. 
Solomon] in opposing the amendment.
  Mr. SOLOMON. I thank the gentleman for his support.
  Mr. HALL of Ohio. Mr. Speaker, I yield 30 seconds to the gentleman 
from North Carolina [Mr. Hefner].
  Mr. HEFNER. Mr. Speaker, I think this is a good bill, and I support 
the bill.
  Let us set one thing straight for the Committee on Rules. They could 
have crafted a rule that would have done no harm to this bill, that 
would have made in order the lockbox amendment. That is a pretty bold 
assessment that they are putting up here. It could have been in order, 
would have done no harm to this bill, and it would have done what the 
people who had signed on to the lockbox amendment long ago wanted. It 
was absolutely done away with in the budget considerations, so let us 
not say it would have been out of order. It could have been in order 
but for the rule that was crafted. They could have crafted a rule that 
would have made it in perfect order for the lockbox amendment to be 
offered in this bill, and it would have done no damage to the military 
construction bill.
  Mr. SOLOMON. Mr. Speaker, will the gentleman yield?
  Mr. QUILLEN. I yield to the gentleman from New York.
  Mr. SOLOMON. Let me just say that the gentleman just does not 
understand the rule, that if the previous question were defeated and do 
not interrupt me, if the previous question were defeated, and then this 
was brought back to make this in order, it would, in my opinion, still 
be subject to a point of order. I cannot speak for the Parliamentarian, 
but from all previous precedents I know that that would be ruled out of 
order, and it would not be back here.
  Mr. HALL of Ohio. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may 
consume.
  I would only say, Mr. Speaker, that that was not the question. If we 
could have passed the amendment in the Committee on Rules yesterday 
that was voted down, I believe 8 to 3, it would have been in order to 
offer this amendment with the proper waivers, and that was the question 
that he asked, not if, in fact, we defeat this previous question.
  Mr. HEFNER. Mr. Speaker, will the gentleman yield?
  Mr. HALL of Ohio. I yield to the gentleman from North Carolina.
  Mr. HEFNER. Mr. Speaker, I do not understand a lot of things around 
here, but I do understand rules. I have been in this House for 20 
years, so for the gentleman to tell me I do not understand the rules is 
a little bit ludicrous.
  Mr. SOLOMON. Mr. Speaker, will the gentleman yield?
  Mr. HALL of Ohio. I yield to the gentleman from New York.
  Mr. SOLOMON. I just tell the gentleman I have been here for just 
about as long, and, if he looks at all these rules here, we can all 
stand a little learning sometime.
  Mr. HALL of Ohio. Mr. Speaker, I do not have any more speakers. I 
would only say that I would urge my colleagues to defeat the previous 
question, and, if the previous question is defeated, I would offer an 
amendment that would make in order the Brewster-Harman deficit 
reduction lockbox amendment.
  Mr. Speaker, I ask unanimous consent that my amendment be printed in 
the Record at this point.
  The SPEAKER pro tempore (Mr. Burton of Indiana). Is there objection 
to the request of the gentleman from Ohio?
  There was no objection.

       Proposed amendment to House Resolution 167: At the end of 
     the resolution, add the following:
     
[[Page H6055]]

       ``Sec. 3. Before consideration of any other amendment, it 
     shall be in order to consider, any rule of the House to the 
     contrary notwithstanding, an amendment on the subject of the 
     deficit reduction lockbox to be offered by Representative 
     Brewster of Oklahoma and Representative Harman of California 
     and submitted to be printed in the Congressional Record no 
     later than June 16, 1995.''

  Mr. HALL of Ohio. Mr. Speaker, I yield back the balance of my time.
  Mr. QUILLEN. Mr. Speaker, I, too, yield back the balance of my time, 
and I move the previous question on the resolution.
  The SPEAKER pro tempore. The question is on ordering the resolution.
  The question was taken; and the Speaker pro tempore announced that 
the ayes appeared to have it.
  Mr. OBEY. 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 the provisions of clause 5 of rule XV, the Chair 
announces that he will reduce to a minimum of 5 minutes the period of 
time within which a vote by electronic device will be taken on the 
question of adoption of the resolution.
  The vote was taken by electronic device, and there were--yeas 223, 
nays 180, not voting 31, as follows:

                             [Roll No. 386]

                               YEAS--223

     Allard
     Armey
     Bachus
     Baker (CA)
     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
     Dornan
     Dreier
     Duncan
     Dunn
     Ehlers
     Emerson
     English
     Ensign
     Everett
     Ewing
     Fawell
     Fields (TX)
     Flanagan
     Foley
     Forbes
     Fowler
     Fox
     Franks (CT)
     Franks (NJ)
     Frelinghuysen
     Frisa
     Funderburk
     Ganske
     Gekas
     Gilchrest
     Gillmor
     Gilman
     Goodlatte
     Goodling
     Goss
     Graham
     Greenwood
     Gunderson
     Gutknecht
     Hancock
     Hansen
     Hastert
     Hastings (WA)
     Hayworth
     Hefley
     Heineman
     Herger
     Hilleary
     Hobson
     Hoekstra
     Hoke
     Horn
     Hostettler
     Houghton
     Hunter
     Hutchinson
     Hyde
     Inglis
     Istook
     Johnson (CT)
     Johnson, Sam
     Jones
     Kasich
     Kelly
     Kim
     King
     Kingston
     Klug
     Knollenberg
     Kolbe
     LaHood
     Latham
     LaTourette
     Lazio
     Leach
     Lewis (CA)
     Lewis (KY)
     Lightfoot
     Linder
     Livingston
     LoBiondo
     Longley
     Lucas
     Manzullo
     Martini
     McCollum
     McCrery
     McDade
     McHugh
     McInnis
     McIntosh
     McKeon
     Metcalf
     Meyers
     Mica
     Miller (FL)
     Molinari
     Moorhead
     Morella
     Myers
     Myrick
     Nethercutt
     Neumann
     Ney
     Norwood
     Nussle
     Oxley
     Packard
     Paxon
     Petri
     Pickett
     Pombo
     Porter
     Portman
     Pryce
     Quillen
     Quinn
     Radanovich
     Ramstad
     Regula
     Riggs
     Roberts
     Rogers
     Rohrabacher
     Ros-Lehtinen
     Rose
     Roth
     Roukema
     Royce
     Salmon
     Sanford
     Saxton
     Scarborough
     Schaefer
     Schiff
     Seastrand
     Sensenbrenner
     Shadegg
     Shaw
     Shays
     Shuster
     Skeen
     Smith (MI)
     Smith (TX)
     Smith (WA)
     Solomon
     Souder
     Spence
     Stearns
     Stockman
     Stump
     Talent
     Tate
     Taylor (MS)
     Taylor (NC)
     Thomas
     Thornberry
     Tiahrt
     Upton
     Vucanovich
     Waldholtz
     Walker
     Walsh
     Wamp
     Watts (OK)
     Weldon (FL)
     Weldon (PA)
     Weller
     White
     Whitfield
     Wicker
     Wolf
     Young (AK)
     Young (FL)
     Zeliff

                               NAYS--180

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

                             NOT VOTING--31

     Ackerman
     Archer
     Baker (LA)
     Chapman
     Clay
     Clayton
     Collins (IL)
     Coyne
     Dickey
     Dooley
     Doolittle
     Ehrlich
     Flake
     Gallegly
     Gephardt
     Hayes
     Jefferson
     Kleczka
     Largent
     Matsui
     Mineta
     Moakley
     Parker
     Pelosi
     Schumer
     Smith (NJ)
     Stokes
     Thornton
     Torkildsen
     Tucker
     Yates

                              {time}  1126

  Mr. WARD and Mr. VISCLOSKY changed their vote from ``yea'' to 
``nay.''
  Mr. RADANOVICH and Mr. TAYLOR of Mississippi changed their vote from 
``nay'' to ``yea.''
  So the previous question was ordered.
  The result of the vote was announced as above recorded.
  The SPEAKER pro tempore (Mr. Burton of Indiana). The question is on 
the resolution.
  The question was taken; and the Speaker pro tempore announced that 
the ayes appeared to have it.


                             recorded vote

  Mr. OBEY. 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 245, 
noes 155, not voting 34, as follows:

                             [Roll No. 387]

                               AYES--245

     Abercrombie
     Allard
     Archer
     Armey
     Bachus
     Baker (CA)
     Ballenger
     Barr
     Barrett (NE)
     Bartlett
     Barton
     Bass
     Bateman
     Bereuter
     Bevill
     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
     Coleman
     Collins (GA)
     Combest
     Cooley
     Cox
     Cramer
     Crane
     Crapo
     Cremeans
     Cubin
     Cunningham
     Davis
     Deal
     DeLay
     Diaz-Balart
     Dicks
     Doolittle
     Dornan
     Dreier
     Duncan
     Dunn
     Emerson
     English
     Ensign
     Everett
     Ewing
     Fawell
     Fields (TX)
     Flanagan
     Foley
     Forbes
     Ford
     Fowler
     Fox
     Franks (CT)
     Frelinghuysen
     Frisa
     Funderburk
     Ganske
     Gekas
     Gilchrest
     Gillmor
     Gilman
     Goodlatte
     Goodling
     Goss
     Graham
     Greenwood
     Gunderson
     Gutknecht
     Hall (OH)
     Hancock
     Hansen
     Hastert
     Hastings (WA)
     Hayworth
     Hefley
     Hefner
     Heineman
     Herger
     Hilleary
     Hobson
     Hoekstra
     Hoke
     Horn
     Hostettler
     Houghton
     Hunter
     Hutchinson
     Hyde
     Inglis
     Istook
     Johnson (CT)
     Johnson, Sam
     Jones
     Kasich
     Kelly
     Kim
     King
     Kingston
     Klug
     Knollenberg
     Kolbe
     LaHood
     Latham
     LaTourette
     Laughlin
     Lazio
     Leach
     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
     Morella
     Murtha
     Myers
     Myrick
     Nethercutt
     Neumann
     Ney
     Norwood
     Nussle
     Ortiz
     Oxley
     Packard
     Parker
     Paxon
     Petri
     Pickett
     Pombo
     Porter
     Portman
     Pryce
     
[[Page H6056]]

     Quillen
     Quinn
     Radanovich
     Ramstad
     Rangel
     Regula
     Riggs
     Roberts
     Roemer
     Rogers
     Rohrabacher
     Ros-Lehtinen
     Roth
     Roukema
     Salmon
     Sanford
     Saxton
     Scarborough
     Schaefer
     Schiff
     Seastrand
     Sensenbrenner
     Serrano
     Shadegg
     Shaw
     Shays
     Shuster
     Sisisky
     Skeen
     Skelton
     Smith (MI)
     Smith (TX)
     Smith (WA)
     Solomon
     Souder
     Spence
     Stearns
     Stockman
     Stump
     Talent
     Tate
     Tauzin
     Taylor (MS)
     Taylor (NC)
     Tejeda
     Thomas
     Thornberry
     Tiahrt
     Torricelli
     Traficant
     Upton
     Vucanovich
     Waldholtz
     Walker
     Walsh
     Wamp
     Watts (OK)
     Weldon (FL)
     Weldon (PA)
     Weller
     White
     Whitfield
     Wicker
     Wilson
     Wolf
     Young (AK)
     Young (FL)
     Zeliff

                               NOES--155

     Andrews
     Baesler
     Baldacci
     Barcia
     Barrett (WI)
     Becerra
     Beilenson
     Bentsen
     Berman
     Bishop
     Bonior
     Borski
     Boucher
     Brewster
     Browder
     Brown (CA)
     Brown (FL)
     Brown (OH)
     Bryant (TX)
     Cardin
     Clement
     Clyburn
     Collins (MI)
     Condit
     Conyers
     Costello
     Danner
     de la Garza
     DeFazio
     DeLauro
     Dellums
     Deutsch
     Dingell
     Dixon
     Doggett
     Doyle
     Durbin
     Edwards
     Engel
     Eshoo
     Evans
     Farr
     Fattah
     Fazio
     Fields (LA)
     Filner
     Foglietta
     Frank (MA)
     Franks (NJ)
     Frost
     Furse
     Gejdenson
     Geren
     Gibbons
     Gonzalez
     Gordon
     Green
     Gutierrez
     Hall (TX)
     Hamilton
     Harman
     Hastings (FL)
     Hilliard
     Hinchey
     Holden
     Hoyer
     Jackson-Lee
     Jacobs
     Johnson (SD)
     Johnson, E. B.
     Johnston
     Kanjorski
     Kaptur
     Kennedy (MA)
     Kennedy (RI)
     Kennelly
     Kildee
     Klink
     LaFalce
     Lantos
     Levin
     Lewis (GA)
     Lincoln
     Lipinski
     Lofgren
     Lowey
     Luther
     Manton
     Markey
     Martinez
     Mascara
     McCarthy
     McDermott
     McHale
     McKinney
     Meehan
     Meek
     Menendez
     Mfume
     Miller (CA)
     Minge
     Mink
     Moran
     Nadler
     Neal
     Oberstar
     Obey
     Olver
     Orton
     Owens
     Pallone
     Pastor
     Payne (NJ)
     Payne (VA)
     Peterson (FL)
     Peterson (MN)
     Pomeroy
     Poshard
     Rahall
     Reed
     Reynolds
     Richardson
     Rivers
     Rose
     Roybal-Allard
     Rush
     Sabo
     Sanders
     Sawyer
     Schroeder
     Scott
     Skaggs
     Slaughter
     Spratt
     Stark
     Stenholm
     Studds
     Stupak
     Tanner
     Thompson
     Thurman
     Towns
     Velazquez
     Vento
     Visclosky
     Volkmer
     Ward
     Watt (NC)
     Waxman
     Williams
     Wise
     Woolsey
     Wyden
     Wynn
     Zimmer

                             NOT VOTING--34

     Ackerman
     Baker (LA)
     Chapman
     Clay
     Clayton
     Collins (IL)
     Coyne
     Dickey
     Dooley
     Ehlers
     Ehrlich
     Flake
     Gallegly
     Gephardt
     Hayes
     Jefferson
     Kleczka
     Largent
     Lewis (CA)
     Maloney
     Matsui
     Mineta
     Moakley
     Pelosi
     Royce
     Schumer
     Smith (NJ)
     Stokes
     Thornton
     Torkildsen
     Torres
     Tucker
     Waters
     Yates

                              {time}  1135

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

                          ____________________