[Congressional Record Volume 141, Number 103 (Thursday, June 22, 1995)]
[House]
[Pages H6233-H6242]
From the Congressional Record Online through the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]



[[Page H 6233]]

 PROVIDING FOR CONSIDERATION OF H.R. 1868, FOREIGN OPERATIONS, EXPORT 
        FINANCING, AND RELATED PROGRAMS APPROPRIATIONS ACT, 1996

  Mr. GOSS. Mr. Speaker, by direction of the Committee on Rules, I call 
up House Resolution 170 and ask for its immediate consideration.
  The Clerk read the resolution as follows:

                              H. Res. 170

       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. 1868) making appropriations for foreign 
     operations, export financing, and related programs 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. The bill 
     shall be considered by title rather than by paragraph. Each 
     title shall be considered as read. Points of order against 
     provisions in the bill for failure to comply with clause 2, 
     5(b), or 6 of rule XXI are waived. Before consideration of 
     any other amendment it shall be in order to consider the 
     amendments printed in part 1 of the report of the Committee 
     on Rules accompanying this resolution in the order printed. 
     Each of those amendments may be offered only by a Member 
     designated in the report, may amend portions of the bill not 
     yet read for amendment, shall be considered as read, shall be 
     debatable for ten minutes equally divided and controlled by 
     the proponent and an opponent, 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. All points of order against amendments printed in part 
     1 of the report are waived. After disposition of the 
     amendments printed in part 1 of the report, the provisions of 
     the bill as then perfected shall be considered as original 
     text. Points of order against amendments printed in part of 
     the report under clause 2 of rule XXI are waived. An 
     amendment printed in part 2 of the report shall not be 
     subject to a demand for division of the question in the House 
     or in the Committee of the Whole. During further 
     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 with or without 
     instructions.

  The SPEAKER pro tempore. The gentleman from Florida [Mr. Goss] is 
recognized for 1 hour.
  Mr. GOSS. Mr. Speaker, for the purposes 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 purposes of debate 
only.
  (Mr. GOSS asked and was given permission to include extraneous 
material in the Record.)


       permission for member to offer amendments in modified form

  Mr. GOSS. Mr. Speaker, I ask unanimous consent that the gentleman 
from Ohio [Mr. Hall] be permitted to offer either of his amendments 
numbered 1 or 2 in House Report 104-147 which accompanies House 
Resolution 170, to the bill H.R. 1868 in the modified form which 
Representative Hall has placed at the desk.
  The SPEAKER pro tempore. Is there objection to the request of the 
gentleman from Florida?
  Mr. HALL of Ohio. Mr. Speaker, reserving the right to object, I will 
not object, but I would like to explain this request.
  The unanimous consent will simply correct a technical and clerical 
error that occurred at the Legislative Counsel's office in the drafting 
of my amendments, which appear as amendments number 1 and number 2. An 
incorrect number was picked up from line 14, page 22, of H.R. 1868. As 
a result, the corrected numbers in the Hall amendment are 
$2,326,700,000 and $2,300,000,000 respectively. This is a technical 
error.

                              {time}  1545

  It will not change the thrust of the amendments, and I still only 
intend to offer one of them.
  Mr. Speaker, I withdraw my reservation of objection.
  The SPEAKER pro tempore. Is there objection to the request of the 
gentleman from Florida?
  Mr. OBEY. Mr. Speaker, reserving the right to object, is the 
technical amendment only in the Hall amendment and no other portion?
  Mr. GOSS. Mr. Speaker, will the gentleman yield?
  Mr. OBEY. Further reserving the right to object, I yield to the 
gentleman from Florida.
  Mr. GOSS. That is the only part of the unanimous-consent request that 
I have presently on the floor on which the gentleman from Ohio [Mr. 
Hall] reserved the right to object.
  Mr. OBEY. Mr. Speaker, I withdraw my reservation of objection.
  The SPEAKER pro tempore (Mr. Camp). Is there objection to the request 
of the gentleman from Florida?
  There was no objection.
  Mr. GOSS. Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to bring this rule to the floor 
today. While it is not a remarkable rule, it does share certain 
qualities with most of the rules of the new majority that we have 
reported this year.
  First, it is open. It has a very limited number of specific waivers, 
and it is fair to both sides of the aisle.
  Specifically, the rule for the foreign operations bill accomplishes 
several things. First, it is an open rule, allowing any Member to offer 
an amendment that is in order under the standing rules of the House. In 
fact, this rule does go a little bit beyond that, allowing for debate 
on four separate amendments, two Democratic amendments and two 
Republican amendments, that might not be allowed under a regular rule, 
might not, I say, because we are not entirely sure of the parliamentary 
rulings on all of them.
  There are only three specific waivers given to the bill for 
unauthorized appropriations, reappropriations, and for a technical 
trade provision.
  The first two are needed because there has not been a foreign 
operations authorization bill that has made it into law since 1985, as 
just about everybody knows. This year the House passed an authorizing 
bill. We have done our work, and it is worth noting the Committee on 
Appropriations has worked closely with the Committee on International 
Relations to ensure this bill is in line with the House-passed 
authorization.
  The last technical waiver I mentioned is required because the bill 
contains a provision expanding the President's existing authority to 
impose trade sanctions to Iraq, Serbia, and Montenegro. While this 
provision is included in the bill for very sound foreign policy 
reasons, trade issues fall under the primary jurisdiction of the 
Committee on Ways and Means. Therefore, this section needs a waiver 
from clause 5(b) of rule XXI.
  As in previous rules this year, we have included a preprinting 
option, I stress the word ``option,'' for priority and recognition.
  And, finally, this rule provides for a motion to recommit with or 
without instructions, as is the right of the minority.
  Mr. Speaker, as we discussed in the Committee on Rules hearing 
yesterday, it is important for this House to have a full and complete 
debate over the issue of foreign aid especially over the true amount of 
tax dollars involved and the policies that drive these expenditures. I 
am pleased that this rule allows for this debate, and I look forward to 
it.
  This year's foreign aid rule is, in many ways, a tremendous 
improvement over previous bills. To begin with, it is $1.6 billion 
below last year's bill and $2.8 billion below the President's requests. 
Those are significant amounts of money, and, in my view, they are 
responsible cuts that represent the kind of spending reform that is 
necessary to achieve the balanced budget we set out to do.
  In addition, there is much greater accountability for the funds spent 
under this bill. Americans have demanded that. And we make these two 
issues, affordability and accountability, our top priority in any 
foreign aid bill, and I think we have done that pretty well here.
  We are now down to less than 1 percent of the budget for foreign aid, 
something under $12 billion. [[Page H 6234]] 
  There is one area in which I would like to see even greater 
accountability, however, and that is aid to the Government of Haiti. 
The Clinton administration has committed an enormous amount of 
taxpayers' dollars to Haiti, actually without much explanation or 
accounting so far. There is an important pair of elections scheduled 
for this calendar year, elections for Haiti's parliament this weekend 
and the Presidency in December of this year.
  I plan to offer an amendment that will require that before United 
States dollars are sent to Haiti, those elections be conducted in a 
democratic and constitutional manner. This will provide greater 
accountability for the foreign aid dollars that are spent in Haiti and 
ensure that they are ulitized to enhance democracy and provide a real 
incentive to Haiti to stay on the road to democracy.
  Mr. Speaker, I believe the rule before us today is both fair and 
open. It was voted out of our committee on a voice vote, and I urge my 
colleagues to support its adoption.

  THE AMENDMENT PROCESS UNDER SPECIAL RULES REPORTED BY THE RULES COMMITTEE,\1\ 103D CONGRESS V. 104TH CONGRESS 
                                              [As of June 20, 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                 30                 73
Modified Closed \3\.................                 49                 47                 11                 27
Closed \4\..........................                  9                  9                  0                  0
                                     ---------------------------------------------------------------------------
      Totals:.......................                104                100                 41                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 pre-
  printed 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 May 12, 1995]                                              
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
  H. Res. No. (Date                                                                                             
       rept.)               Rule type             Bill No.                 Subject           Disposition of rule
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
H. Res. 38 (1/18/95)  O...................  H.R. 5..............  Unfunded Mandate Reform..  A: 350-71 (1/19/   
                                                                                              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 (2/1/
                                                                   Pueblo Indians.            95).              
H. Res. 52 (1/31/95)  O...................  H.R. 400............  Land Exchange, Arctic      A: voice vote (2/1/
                                                                   Nat'l. Park and Preserve.  95).              
H. Res. 53 (1/31/95)  O...................  H.R. 440............  Land Conveyance, Butte     A: voice vote (2/1/
                                                                   County, Calif.             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 Reform.  A: voice vote (2/7/
                                                                                              95).              
H. Res. 63 (2/8/95).  MO..................  H.R. 667............  Violent Criminal           A: voice vote (2/9/
                                                                   Incarceration.             95).              
H. Res. 69 (2/9/95).  O...................  H.R. 668............  Criminal Alien             A: voice vote (2/10/
                                                                   Deportation.               95).              
H. Res. 79 (2/10/95)  MO..................  H.R. 728............  Law Enforcement Block      A: voice vote (2/13/
                                                                   Grants.                    95).              
H. Res. 83 (2/13/95)  MO..................  H.R. 7..............  National Security          PQ: 229-100; A: 227-
                                                                   Revitalization.            127 (2/15/95).    
H. Res. 88 (2/16/95)  MC..................  H.R. 831............  Health Insurance           PQ: 230-191; A: 229-
                                                                   Deductibility.             188 (2/21/95).    
H. Res. 91 (2/21/95)  O...................  H.R. 830............  Paperwork Reduction Act..  A: voice vote (2/22/
                                                                                              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 Act  A: 252-175 (2/23/  
                                                                                              95).              
H. Res. 96 (2/24/95)  MO..................  H.R. 1022...........  Risk Assessment..........  A: 253-165 (2/27/  
                                                                                              95).              
H. Res. 100 (2/27/    O...................  H.R. 926............  Regulatory Reform and      A: voice vote (2/28/
 95).                                                              Relief Act.                95).              
H. Res. 101 (2/28/    MO..................  H.R. 925............  Private Property           A: 271-151 (3/1/95)
 95).                                                              Protection Act.                              
H. Res. 104 (3/3/95)  MO..................  H.R. 988............  Attorney Accountability    A: voice vote (3/6/
                                                                   Act.                       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 Reform.  A: voice vote (3/8/
                                                                                              95)               
H. Res. 109 (3/8/95)  MC..................  ....................  .........................  PQ: 234-191 A: 247-
                                                                                              181 (3/9/95)      
H. Res. 115 (3/14/    MO..................  H.R. 1159...........  Making Emergency Supp.     A: 242-190 (3/15/  
 95).                                                              Approps..                  95)               
H. Res. 116 (3/15/    MC..................  H.J. Res. 73........  Term Limits Const. Amdt..  A: voice vote (3/28/
 95).                                                                                         95)               
H. Res. 117 (3/16/    Debate..............  H.R. 4..............  Personal Responsibility    A: voice vote (3/21/
 95).                                                              Act of 1995.               95)               
H. Res. 119 (3/21/    MC..................  ....................  .........................  A: 217-211 (3/22/  
 95).                                                                                         95)               
H. Res. 125 (4/3/95)  O...................  H.R. 1271...........  Family Privacy Protection  A: 423-1 (4/4/95)  
                                                                   Act.                                         
H. Res. 126 (4/3/95)  O...................  H.R. 660............  Older Persons Housing Act  A: voice vote      
H. Res. 128 (4/4/95)  MC..................  H.R. 1215...........  Contract With America Tax  A: 228-204 (4/5/95)
                                                                   Relief Act of 1995.                          
H. Res. 130 (4/5/95)  MC..................  H.R. 483............  Medicare Select Expansion   A: 253-172 (4/6/  
                                                                                              95)               
H. Res. 136 (5/1/95)  O...................  H.R. 655............  Hydrogen Future Act of     A: voice vote (5/2/
                                                                   1995.                      95)               
H. Res. 139 (5/3/95)  O...................  H.R. 1361...........  Coast Guard Auth. FY 1996  A: voice vote (5/9/
                                                                                              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/    O...................  H.R. 535............  Fish Hatchery--Arkansas..  A: voice vote (5/15/
 95).                                                                                         95)               
H. Res. 145 (5/11/    O...................  H.R. 584............  Fish Hatchery--Iowa......  A: voice vote (5/15/
 95).                                                                                         95)               
H. Res. 146.........  O...................  H.R. 614............  Fish Hatchery--Minnesota.  A: voice vote (5/15/
                                                                                              95)               
H. Res. 149 (5/16/    MC..................  H. Con. Res. 67.....  Budget Resolution FY 1996  PQ: 252-170 A: 255-
 95).                                                                                         168 (5/17/95)     
H. Res. 155 (5/22/    MO..................  H.R. 1561...........  American Overseas          A: 233-176 (5/23/  
 95).                                                              Interests Act.             95)               
H. Res. 164 (6/8/95)  MC..................  H.R. 1530...........  Nat. Defense Auth. FY      PQ: 225-191 A: 233-
                                                                   1996.                      183 (6/13/95)     
H. Res. 167 (6/15/    O...................  H.R. 1817...........  MilCon Appropriations FY   PQ:223-180 A: 245- 
 95).                                                              1996.                      155 (6/16/95)     
H. Res. 169 (6/19/    MC..................  H.R. 1854...........  Leg. Branch Approps. FY    PQ: 232-196 A: 236-
 95).                                                              1996.                      191 (6/20/95)     
H. Res. 170 (6/20/    O...................  H.R. 1868...........  For. Ops. Approps. FY      ...................
 95).                                                              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 may 
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 170 is essentially an open rule. It provides 1 hour of 
general debate on the foreign operations appropriation bill for fiscal 
year 1996.
  The rule does provide waivers of clause 2 of rule XXI, to allow 
unauthorized appropriations provisions in the bill, as well as clause 6 
of rule XXI, prohibiting reappropriations in some provisions.
  The rule does reflect an agreement between the authorizing committee 
and the appropriators by making in order two amendments to be offered 
by the gentleman from New York [Mr. Gilman], chairman of the Committee 
on International Relations.
  The rule also makes in order my children's amendment, which is called 
the Hall amendment, to transfer $108 million in funds to the new child 
survival fund and to include basic education activities for millions of 
poor children overseas.
  I want to thank the gentleman from New York [Mr. Solomon] and the 
members of the Republicans and the Democrats on the Committee on Rules 
for making this in order. I appreciate that.
  Other amendments allowed under the rule include one by the gentleman 
from New Jersey [Mr. Smith], the gentleman from New Jersey [Mr. 
Menendez] on Cuba, the gentleman from Florida [Mr. Goss] on Haiti, and 
under the normal amending process in the House, any [[Page H 
6235]] other amendment which does not violate House rules will be in 
order under this rule.
  So, Mr. Speaker, while I do support this rule, I have some misgivings 
about the bill as it currently stands. As I indicated during the debate 
on the American Overseas Interest Act, the international affairs budget 
represents only 1.3 percent of total Federal spending. It has already 
been cut by 40 percent since 1985, and under this bill the fund for 
Africa absorbs a 34-percent cut and another 40 percent is squeezed out 
of development aid. Funds in these areas go for self-0help, preventive 
programs which alleviate more money down the road.
  Mr. Speaker, I am pleased the Committee on Rules was able to make the 
Hall amendment, which is my amendment, in order to transfer $108 
million in funds to the new child survival and disease programs fund. 
This fund is created to take care of vital child survival and disease 
prevention activities that alleviate malnutrition and death among the 
world's poorest children.
  My amendment will also allow basic education programs to be funded 
through this new children's account.
  Disease and malnutrition and basic education are the core of self-
sufficiency, and without a renewed emphasis on these kinds of programs, 
we cannot expect people to raise themselves out of poverty or improve 
their situations. For each additional year of schooling children from 
developing countries receive, their incomes rise as much as 10 percent.
  My amendment pays for itself by transferring small amounts from other 
foreign aid programs that can absorb the cuts.
  And finally, in the Committee on Rules hearing, the gentleman from 
Oklahoma [Mr. Brewster] did request an amendment know as the deficit 
reduction lockbox amendment. This would have allowed any savings 
obtained from floor votes to go into a special deficit reduction trust 
fund. Given the interest many of us have in deficit reduction, I 
believe the Committee on Rules should have made the Brewster amendment 
in order.
  My colleague, the gentleman from California [Mr. Beilenson] did offer 
the lockbox measure as an amendment to the rule, but, unfortunately, it 
failed.
  I plan to support the rule. I think it is a good rule.
  Mr. Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.
  Mr. GOSS. Mr. Speaker, I yield such time as he may consume to the 
distinguished gentleman from Glens Falls, NY [Mr. Solomon], the 
chairman of the Committee on Rules, formerly of Okeechobee, FL.
  Mr. SOLOMON. As a matter of fact, I will be down near there this 
weekend.
  Let me say the two speakers, the gentleman from Florida [Mr. Goss] 
and the gentleman from Ohio [Mr. Hall], have accurately described this 
rule as being fair and open, and it is.
  It allows Republicans and Democrats, it allows liberals, 
conservatives, anybody else, the right to come on this floor and work 
their will. That is the way it should be. I will not go into that any 
further.
  Let me just say this appropriations bill itself represents yet 
another installment in our march towards a balancing of the Federal 
budget. That, to me, means so much. It means that the total 
appropriation in this bill is almost 20-percent below the 
administration's request, and more than that, it is almost 12-percent 
below the appropriated level from fiscal year 1995. And that is the 
only way that we are ever going to balance the budget. We have to spend 
less this year than we spent last year, and we have got to continue to 
do that year in and year out at least for 7 years. I wish it could be 
sooner.
  The truth of the matter is we are following the Ronald Reagan 
philosophy. He said that instead of giving people fish and foreign aid, 
we ought to teach them how to fish, and that is exactly what this bill 
does. Otherwise, we have to keep giving them fish year in and year out. 
This way, let us teach them how to fish. That is what we are doing in 
restructuring our foreign aid programs, as well as the domestic 
programs.
  So I commend the sponsors of this legislation on the Committee on 
Appropriations for a job well done, and I hope that everybody votes for 
this fair rule and then for the bill itself.
  It will be the first appropriations bill on foreign operations that I 
have ever voted for, and that is because it begins to turn things 
around and reduce the Federal deficit.
  Mr. HALL of Ohio. Mr. Speaker, I yield 3 minutes to the gentleman 
from Wisconsin [Mr. Obey].
  Mr. OBEY. Mr. Speaker, let me simply observe, with respect to the 
statement by the gentleman from New York, that the foreign aid bills 
for the last 10 years have reduced the level of foreign assistance. 
They used to be $18 billion, and in the last decade they have been 
brought down to $13 billion. So this is not, by any means, the first 
foreign assistance bill which was lower than the previous year. We have 
had that occur on a number of occasions during the years that I have 
chaired that subcommittee.
  Let me say that I have opposed the authorization bill because I felt 
that it represents some of the most incredible micromanagement of 
foreign assistance in the history of the foreign assistance program, 
and I think that much of the micromanagement in that bill is idiotic.
  But I have been intending to support the appropriation bill because 
despite the fact that I believe it has a poor allocation of priorities 
and, despite the reckless manner with which it deals with issues such 
as NATO and our relationship with the Soviet Union, it does, in fact, 
not have a lot of the micromanagement that is contained in the 
authorization bill.
  I was informed earlier that it was the intention of the committee not 
to accept legislative language, save two amendments which everyone 
understood would be offered, one being the one by the gentleman from 
Ohio [Mr. Hall] and the other by the gentleman from New Jersey [Mr. 
Smith]. The abortion issue is so contentious that we almost always have 
an issue like that, and that cannot be avoided.
  But there are two other legislative amendments which are now being 
made in order which have, in my view, no business on an appropriation 
bill which would tie our entire relationship with the Soviet Union to 
one narrow question of what happens in Cuba, and another amendment 
which would tie our entire aid relationship to Haiti to legislative 
language which I have not even yet had an opportunity to review, let 
alone staff out.
  And so, under these circumstances, what I had thought would be a rule 
which would be a straight appropriation rule bill, in fact, allow for a 
number of policy issues which, in my view, properly ought to be debated 
on the authorization bill and not on the appropriations bill. And 
because of that, and because I believe that the amendment with respect 
to our relationship with the Soviet Union further adds to the 
recklessness with which that issue has generally been dealt with by 
this committee, I am sorry to say that I will have to oppose the rule 
and will, in fact, oppose the previous question on the rule and would 
ask that if the previous question is not approved, that the House 
support an amendment correcting the fact that there are two legislative 
amendments on this proposal that do not belong here.
  Mr. GOSS. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume.
  I would just note in response to the gentleman's comments that one of 
those amendments was brought forward by a distinguished Member of the 
gentleman's party, the gentleman from New Jersey [Mr. Menendez], and he 
was treated very fairly. It was thought to be an important amendment.
  And the other amendment, the one about Haiti which was brought 
forward by myself, actually probably does not need protection, because 
it is a cutting amendment, a limitation amendment, not a legislating 
amendment, we are told.
  Mr. Speaker, I yield 4 minutes to my colleague, the distinguished 
gentleman from Florida [Mr. Diaz-Balart].

                              {time}  1600

  Mr. DIAZ-BALART. Mr. Speaker, I thank my distinguished colleague, the 
gentleman from Florida [Mr. Goss] for yielding me this time.
  I think it is curious that we just heard that the issue that was made 
in order by virtue of the Menendez amendment having been made in order 
by the Committee on Rules, and I am going to try to paraphrase, is a 
narrow issue that will tie our relationship to [[Page H 6236]] the 
Soviet Union to an incident or a situation in Cuba.
  To call a nuclear power plant that is being built 180 miles from the 
United States, and that is being built of a model that after the 
reunification of Germany four nuclear power plants which had been built 
by the Soviets there of that same model were immediately closed down by 
the Government of Germany because of their lack of safety, to call the 
national interests of the United States that that kind of nuclear power 
plant not be completed 180 miles from our shore a narrow interest is 
quite a curiosity.
  That is precisely, however, why the gentleman from New Jersey [Mr. 
Menendez] came before the Committee on Rules, because of the grave 
nature of the threat to the U.S. national security that would ensue if 
this nuclear power plant were completed.
  That is why the gentleman from New Jersey [Mr. Menendez] came before 
the Committee on Rules and asked we make in order, and we did, his 
amendment which will simply say to Russia that, if they contribute to 
the completion of that nuclear power plant 180 miles from the United 
States in Cuba, that the amount that Russia contributes to that nuclear 
power plant's completion on a dollar-for-dollar basis will be deducted 
from United States taxpayer assistance to Russia.
  Now that is not, Mr. Speaker, I would maintain, nor did the majority 
of the Committee on Rules maintain, a narrow interest. It is the 
national security interests of the United States being protected by 
this Congress in making sure that we make the strongest possible 
statement to Russia that we will not accept a VVER, a VVER model 
nuclear power plant being completed a hundred 180 miles from the soil 
of the United States.
  Now in Europe the entire environmental movement is mobilized at this 
point to close down the other VVER power plants that are still in 
operation throughout Eastern Europe that the Soviets had constructed, 
and they are able to close them down. They have been able to close 
already all of them down in Germany, and they are making substantial 
progress in closing down the other ones.
  This is not a narrow interest. This is something that the gentleman 
from New Jersey [Mr. Menendez] I think brought forth very correctly, 
and I think he has to be commended for bringing it forth in this bill 
as an amendment. He brought it to our attention in the Committee in 
Rules, and we made it in order, as we made in order the request of the 
gentleman from Florida [Mr. Goss] that, if we are going to send 
taxpayer dollars to Haiti, that they have to have free elections.
  Now I think it would be really an extreme absurdity if we were going 
to continue to send U.S. taxpayer dollars to Haiti if a government 
there, whatever the government is, proceeds to steal elections.
  So that is all we are saying, and it is not a narrow interest. It is 
something that is in our national interest. It is something that is in 
our national interest, and that is why, despite the possible, the 
possible allegations that some points of order could conceivably, and 
we are not sure, be made with regard to those amendments, the Committee 
on Rules made them in order.
  It is a good rule, Mr. Speaker, and I would ask for my colleagues' 
support of this fair rule.
  Mr. HALL of Ohio. Mr. Speaker, I yield 1 minute to the gentleman from 
Wisconsin [Mr. Obey].
  Mr. OBEY. Mr. Speaker, I want to make clear that I agree with both 
gentlemen on substance; I agree with the previous speaker. I do not 
want to see that reactor built in Cuba either. I think it is an 
idiotic, asinine, and stupid thing for the Soviets to do, and I think 
we ought to do everything possible to stop it.
  The question is whether the method chosen by the gentleman is the 
most effective way to accomplish that end, and I do not believe it is, 
and that is the simple issue here.
  I do not want for one moment for anyone to believe that I do not 
agree with both gentlemen with respect to their policy positions on 
either Haiti or with respect to that reactor. I say to them, ``I agree 
with you on both of them. I do, however, have substantial question 
about whether or not the method you have chosen to try to accomplish 
that purpose will do it.''
  I, in fact, think it may have the opposite reaction, and that is one 
reason why I believe that on short order, on the basis of a very brief 
discussion in the Committee on Rules, this amendment should not have 
been made in order, because frankly I do not think the Congress at this 
point knows what it is doing on either one of these subjects.
  Mr. GOSS. Mr. Speaker, I yield 1 minute to the distinguished 
gentleman from Florida [Mr. Diaz-Balart] so he may respond to that.
  Mr. DIAZ-BALART. Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentleman from Florida [Mr. 
Goss] for these 2 minutes. I do not think I will need 2 minutes. I just 
want to thank the gentleman from Wisconsin [Mr. Obey] for his support 
on the substantive issue.
  I say to the gentleman, ``If over and above our efforts you have 
further suggestions, we are more than open to receive your suggestions 
on how to make sure that those powerplants won't be completed in Cuba 
and how to make sure that democracy is continued and furthered and 
protected in Haiti. We happen to believe that this is not only an 
appropriate vehicle, but a most appropriate vehicle to put maximum 
pressure on both of these situations with regard to the national 
interests of the United States, but if over and above these efforts you 
have additional suggestions, we will be more than open to review them 
and hopefully work together with you.''
  Mr. SOLOMON. Mr. Speaker, will the gentleman yield?
  Mr. DIAZ-BALART. I yield to the gentleman from New York.
  Mr. SOLOMON. Mr. Speaker, I would just like to point out that the 
original sponsor of the amendment, the gentleman from New Jersey [Mr. 
Menendez], is a Democrat, and certainly the gentleman from Florida is a 
Republican, and so am I. But we all had interest in this because time 
is critical right now.
  As a matter of fact, the truth of the matter is we delayed the markup 
of this rule in the Committee on Rules in order to go back to the 
Appropriations Committee, both sides of the aisle, staff on the 
Democrat side and Republican side, to find out if perhaps there was a 
better way or perhaps other suggestions. We did change it based on 
their recommendations.
  So we have done everything we could. If the gentleman has a better 
way, we will consider that, too.
  Mr. OBEY. Mr. Speaker, will the gentleman yield?
  Mr. DIAZ-BALART. I yield to the gentleman from Wisconsin.
  Mr. OBEY. Mr. Speaker, he keeps indicating that one of the authors of 
one of the amendments was a Democrat. It is immaterial to me whether it 
comes from either side, which side of the aisle it comes from. The fact 
is our committee knows about as much about that subject as the 
gentleman can put in his left ear. It ought to be handled by the 
authorizing committee.
  Mr. SOLOMON. Mr. Speaker, the gentleman from Wisconsin [Mr. Obey] has 
been around here for 20 years. He is probably one of the most 
knowledgeable Members on the subject of foreign affairs, and I have 
praised him to the sky for many years.
  Mr. DIAZ-BALART. Mr. Speaker, we do not want these----
  The SPEAKER pro tempore (Mr. Camp). The time of the gentleman from 
Florida [Mr. Diaz-Balart] has expired.
  Mr. HALL of Ohio. Mr. Speaker, I yield 7 minutes to the gentleman 
from California [Mr. Beilenson], a very distinguished member of the 
Committee on Rules.
  (Mr. BEILENSON asked and was given permission to revise and extend 
his remarks.)
  Mr. BEILENSON. Mr. Speaker, I appreciate very much my colleague and 
friend yielding so much time to me.
  Mr. Speaker, I rise in mild opposition to the rule and in strong 
opposition to the bill that it would make in order, the fiscal 1996 
foreign operations appropriations bill.
  Mr. Speaker, what is at stake in this bill is nothing less than the 
future of America's leadership in the world. While we need to cut 
Federal spending, we ought to be extremely concerned about the 
potentially disastrous effects the spending cuts in this bill will have 
on U.S. influence abroad, on our ability to protect our national 
interests, and on the lives of hundreds of millions of people in the 
developing world. [[Page H 6237]] 
  The bill cuts foreign aid by $1.6 billion below this year's level, a 
level that already reflects a vastly reduced foreign aid budget 
compared to that of, say, 10 years ago when Ronald Reagan was 
President. In 1985, the United States spent $18.1 billion on foreign 
aid. This year we are spending just $13.5 billion, a 25 percent 
reduction, not adjusted for inflation. Adjusted for inflation is closer 
to 40 to 45 percent.
  One of the great myths that has been perpetrated in the media is that 
the Federal Government spends a significant portion of its budget on 
foreign aid. Indeed, in a recent study three of four Americans said 
they believe the United States spends too much on foreign aid. But when 
asked how much they thought the Nation spends, the median response was 
15 percent of the Federal budget. And when respondents were asked how 
much the United States should spend on foreign aid, the median response 
was 5 percent, with most agreeing that 3 percent would be too little.
  As we all know, U.S. foreign aid is actually less than 1 percent of 
the Federal budget. In fact, as a percentage of the our gross national 
product [GNP], the United States is now the lowest aid contributor of 
the world's top 23 industrialized nations.
  For a minuscule fraction of what we spend on defense, the prudent use 
of foreign aid helps us meet escalating threats to our national and to 
global security, including chronic poverty, rapid population growth, 
environmental degradation, forced migration, and in protecting against 
political instability in countries that cannot adequately take care of 
their own people. The long-term effect of the cuts in this bill will be 
a substantial reduction in the President's ability to conduct foreign 
policy, leaving him, and leaving us, with only a military option in too 
many circumstances.
  Many people do not realize how much our modest investment in foreign 
assistance programs benefit U.S. businesses and citizens. When the 
Marshall plan was announced in 1947, only 18 percent of Americans 
supported that effort to rebuild Europe. But U.S. assistance helped to 
establish social and political stability, and created some of our best 
trading partners and, of course, our most staunch political allies. In 
the 1960's and 1970's, many criticized United States assistance to 
countries such as South Korea, Taiwan, Mexico, and India. But once 
again, U.S. assistance ushered in a period of unprecedented growth in 
those countries. With United States help, for example, India has seen 
dramatic increases in agricultural production and, as a consequence 
partially of our foreign aid, a politically stable India now offers a 
promising and growing market of more than 900 million people for United 
States goods.
  The fastest-growing segment of the U.S. export market is in trade 
with developing countries. Today developing countries import almost 40 
percent of U.S. exports, accounting for at least 2 million U.S. 
American jobs. In the past decade alone, exports to developing 
countries have more than doubled from $71 to $180 billion a year.
  The United States is today exporting products and services to many of 
the nations we were giving assistance to in the 1960's and the 1970's. 
More than 24 countries since that time have moved from being foreign 
aid recipients to becoming trading partners with us.
  Foreign aid has also dramatically improved the lives of hundreds of 
millions of people and reduced the risk of, and the occurrence of, 
humanitarian crises. Since 1960, development assistance has helped 
reduce infant mortality rates in developing countries by 50 percent, 
has helped increase life expectancy from 46 years to 63 years, has 
helped increase primary school enrollment from 48 percent to 78 
percent. Foreign aid has resulted in important breakthroughs in 
agriculture; investments made by the United States in better seeds and 
agriculture techniques has helped make it possible to feed an extra 
billion people in the developing world.
  More than 50 million couples in the developing world use family 
planning as a direct result of U.S. assistance for overseas family 
planning services. Over the past 35 years, the average number of 
children per family in the world has been reduced by one-third, from 
six children to four.
  U.S. aid is largely credited with fully immunizing 80 percent of all 
children in developing countries, eradicating smallpox worldwide, and 
virtually eliminating polio in the Western hemisphere.
  And, since 1980--in just the past 15 years--U.S. foreign assistance 
has helped three dozen nations make the transition to democratic 
governance. The spending reductions in this bill threaten to reverse 
these positive trends, especially as the number of poor around the 
world, currently an estimated 1.3 billion people, continues to soar.
  One area of particular concern to me in this bill is the nearly 50-
percent cut in funding for our efforts to stabilize global population 
growth, which underlies virtually every developmental, environmental, 
and national security problem facing the world today.
  Global population is now nearly 5.7 billion people, and it is growing 
by almost 100 million every year--by 260,000 every 24 hours. Future 
prospects, moreover, are even more staggering. If effective action is 
not taken in the next few years--as today's 1.6 billion children in the 
developing world under the age of 15, reach their childbearing years--
the earth's population could nearly quadruple to 20 billion people by 
the end of the coming century.
                              {time}  1615

  In much of the developing world, high birth rates caused largely by 
the lack of access of women to basic reproductive health services and 
information, are contributing to intractable poverty, malnutrition, 
widespread unemployment, urban overcrowding, and the rapid spread of 
disease. Population control growth is outstripping the capacity of many 
nations to make even modest gains in economic development, leading to 
political instability and negating other U.S. and other international 
development efforts.
  So for these and many other reasons, which will be in my extended 
remarks, I urge our colleagues to vote against what I believe to be the 
unwise, counterproductive, and ultimately destructive cuts in our 
Nation's foreign assistance budget contained in this bill. These 
programs work. Combating rapid population growth, enhancing maternal 
health, ensuring child survival, reducing the spread of disease, 
providing basic education and improving agriculture and sustainable 
development are some of the most humane, farsighted, and economically 
effective efforts we can undertake. Maintaining adequate funding for 
these programs now will save many times its expense in future U.S. 
foreign assistance, will promote global peace and security, and will 
promote and protect U.S. foreign policy interests. I urge a ``no'' vote 
on the rule and the bill.
  Mr. Speaker, the impact of exponential population growth, combined 
with unsustainable patterns of consumption, is also evident in mounting 
signs of stress on the world's environment. Under conditions of rapid 
population growth, renewable resources are being used faster than they 
can be replaced. Other environmental consequences of the world's 
burgeoning population are tropical deforestation, erosion of arable 
land and watersheds, extinction of plant and animal species, and 
pollution of air, water, and land.
  For almost 30 years, population assistance has been a central 
component of U.S. development assistance. While much more remains to be 
done, population assistance has had a significant positive impact on 
the health of women and their children and on society as a whole in 
most countries. In many parts of Asia, Latin America, and Africa, 
fertility rates have decreased, often dramatically. Couples are 
succeeding in having the smaller families they want because of the 
greater availability of contraceptives that our assistance has made 
possible.
  Today, approximately 55 percent of couples worldwide use modern 
methods of contraception, compared with 10 percent in the 1960's. 
Despite this impressive increase in contraceptive use, the demand for 
family planning services is growing, in large measure because 
populations are growing. Indeed, over the next 20 years, the number of 
women and men who wish to use contraception will almost double.
  Similarly, population assistance has contributed to the significant 
progress that has been made in reducing infant and child mortality 
rates. Child survival is integrally linked to women's reproductive 
health, and specifically to a mother's timing, spacing and number
 of births. Despite substantial progress, a large proportion of 
children in the developing [[Page H 6238]] world--particularly in sub-
Saharan Africa and some Asian countries--still die in infancy.

  And, while many countries in the developing world have succeeded in 
reducing maternal mortality rates, the incidence of maternal death and 
disability remains unacceptably high, constituting a serious public 
health problem facing most developing countries. According to the World 
Health Organization, an estimated 500,000 women die every year as a 
result of pregnancy and childbirth.
  U.S. population assistance is preventive medicine on an international 
scale. Congress has long recognized this to be the case and over the 
years has reaffirmed the importance of population assistance in 
securing U.S. interests abroad. By addressing the basic health and 
educational needs of women and their families, population assistance 
provides building blocks for strong democratic government and sets the 
stage for economic growth. Furthermore, it helps prevent social and 
political crises, thereby averting the need for costly relief efforts.
  At the International Conference on Population and Development [ICPD], 
held in Cairo last year, the United States was instrumental in building 
a broad consensus behind a comprehensive Program of Action, which was 
signed by almost all of the 180 countries that participate in the 
conference, and which will help guide the population and development 
programs of the United Nations and national governments into the next 
century. Central to this plan is the recognition that with adequate 
funding this decade for family planning and reproductive health 
services, as well as educational, economic, and social opportunities 
necessary to enhance the status of women, we can stabilize world 
population in the first half of the next century.
  This bill, however, seems to abandon the goals of the ICPD and the 
international community. Throughout the Bush administration, and in the 
last two budgets, the President and Congress have seen fit to increase 
funding for population assistance, believing strongly that population 
funding is one of the most cost effective and important uses of our 
foreign aid dollars. In fact, I recently submitted a letter to the 
gentleman from Alabama [Mr. Callahan] with the signatures over 100 of 
our colleagues, urging the committee to fund population programs at the 
level requested by the President--$635 million.
  Instead, the Appropriations Committee has recommended reducing 
population funding to roughly $300 million, and eliminating the 
population and development account all together.
  These significant cuts in population programs will have devastating 
and irreversible consequences for the future course of fertility 
decline in developing countries. The effects of a 50 percent population 
funding reduction will be felt most immediately in the health and well-
being of women and children in developing countries, but will also be 
felt by the larger global community. Without these funds, there will 
likely be an estimated 1.6 million unwanted pregnancies per year, 
resulting in 1.2 million unwanted births, more than 350,000 abortions, 
and 8,000 maternal deaths.
  In addition to these sharp reductions in population assistance, 
related programs for maternal health, disease prevention, general 
education, agricultural improvement and rural development will 
devastated by the cuts in this bill. Although the Appropriations 
Committee has quite laudably attempted to place an emphasis on helping 
the world's children, this bill would cut many of the programs that 
will benefit children the most. It contains large cuts in maternal 
health--$50 million--in efforts to strengthen health care systems which 
deliver services to both children and adults--$88 million--and in water 
sanitation programs--$27 million.
  Of these proposed cuts, one of the most startling and destructive is 
the reduction for maternal health. In the set of 18 countries central 
to USAID's goal of reducing maternal mortality, drastic reductions in 
the funding for delivery of safe pregnancy services will contribute to 
an estimated 24,000 maternal deaths annually that would have been 
otherwise averted. In addition to these preventable maternal deaths, an 
additional 336,000 stillbirths and early newborn deaths are likely to 
occur as a result of USAID's virtual withdrawal
 from this program. Finally, the delivery of safe pregnancy and related 
services not only averts maternal deaths, it also helps to avert long-
term--chronic--disabilities that occur due to pregnancy and childbirth. 
In these 18 key countries, estimates of the number of pregnancy-related 
chronic disabilities are as high as 7 million annually.

  I would also like to say a few words about the Smith amendment to 
this bill, which has been granted a waiver in the rule for violating 
the prohibition against legislating in an appropriations bill.
  Aside from the fact that this waiver is strongly opposed by the 
chairman of the International Relations Committee, Mr. Gilman, and 
should not have been granted, the Smith amendment will deny millions of 
women access to family planning, prenatal care, safe delivery services, 
maternal and infant health programs, treatments for infertility, and 
STD prevention services. It could result in over hundreds of thousands 
of abortions that could have been averted had these women had access to 
basic health services.
  Contrary to what Mr. Smith and other proponents of this amendment 
will argue, this is not about abortion--it is about family planning, 
and the fact that this amendment will cut population assistance funding 
to its lowest level in 25 years, when adjusted for inflation. The fact 
remains that U.S. funds do not pay for abortions. For over 20 years, 
under the Helms amendment to the Foreign Assistance Act, Federal law 
has prohibited any U.S. funds from being used for abortions, or to 
promote abortion. H.R. 1868 retains this prohibition.
  The proponents of this amendment also claim that it simply restores 
anti-abortion policies of the Reagan administration. But it goes 
further than the so-called Mexico City policy, which prohibited funding 
to organizations that perform abortion with private funds. It also 
targets the political messages of family planning providers. It would 
prevent organizations that receive U.S. population assistance from 
using their non-U.S. funds in efforts to influence their own country's 
abortion law, either for or against. Thus, although it is already 
illegal to use U.S. funds to lobby, groups on both sides of the 
abortion issue would be penalized for exercising their rights to 
express their views on abortion.
  Finally, Mr. Smith, in past debates, has misstated the role and 
involvement of the United Nations Population Fund [UNFPA] in China. No 
one disagrees that the coercive Chinese population program is 
abhorrent, and the UNFPA in fact categorically condemns the use of 
coercion in any form or manner in any population program, including 
China. Mr. Smith has said that the UNFPA cannot say enough good things 
about the Chinese program, and that China could not ask for a better 
front than the UNFPA. But Mr. Smith relies on a 1989 quote from UNFPA 
executive director, Dr. Nafis Sadik, that was taken out of context, at 
a time when the Chinese seemed to be making progress towards improving 
the program. The fact is that no evidence has ever been presented of 
complicity by international agencies, including the UNFPA, in Chinese 
human rights abuses and, as confirmed by USAID during the Reagan 
administration, UNFPA does not fund abortion or support coercive 
practices in any country, including China.
  Mr. Smith's amendment ignores the benefits of the UNFPA's presence in 
China and over 140 other countries. One of the reasons the 
international community has information about the horrors of the 
Chinese program is because of the presence in China of international 
organizations such as the UNFPA. Moreover, many countries believe that 
by providing assistance to China, UNFPA is in a unique position to 
positively influence China's population policies and to promote human 
rights. UNFPA is in constant dialog with Chinese officials at every 
level on matters pertaining to human rights, and UNFPA's programs 
expose Chinese officials to international standards through 
international training in foreign institutions, including several 
United States universities. Moreover, denying funding to the UNFPA 
would have a drastic effect on the UNFPA's programs in the rest of the 
world. Nearly half of UNFPA assistance is used for family planning 
services and maternal and child health care in the poorest and most 
remote regions of the world.
  Mr. Speaker, for these and other reasons, I urge our colleagues to 
vote against the unwise, counterproductive, and ultimately destructive 
cuts in our Nation's foreign assistance budget contained in this bill. 
These programs work. Combating rapid population growth, enhancing 
maternal health, insuring child survival, reducing the spread of 
disease, providing basic education, and improving agriculture and 
sustainable development are some of the most humane, farsighted and 
economically effective efforts we can undertake. Maintaining adequate 
funding for these programs now will save many times this expense in 
future U.S. foreign assistance, will greatly reduce human suffering, 
will promote global peace and security and will promote and protect 
U.S. foreign policy interests.
  I urge a ``no'' vote on the rule, and on the bill.
  Mr. GOSS. Mr. Speaker, may I ask for an accounting on the time?
  The SPEAKER pro tempore. The gentleman from Florida [Mr. Goss] has 16 
minutes remaining, and the gentleman from Ohio [Mr. Hall] has 15 
minutes remaining.
  Mr. GOSS. Mr. Speaker, I yield 3 minutes to the distinguished 
gentleman from the Commonwealth of Pennsylvania [Mr. Gekas].
  (Mr. GEKAS asked and was given permission to revise and extend his 
remarks.)
  Mr. GEKAS. Mr. Speaker, I appreciate the yielding of time, because I [[Page H 
6239]] want to rise in support of the rule that is pending, largely 
because it will be accommodating an amendment to be offered by the 
gentleman from Illinois [Mr. Porter] at a later point in the 
proceedings, which will seek to modify the behavior of the Turkish 
Government vis-a-vis the Kurds and the record of human rights 
violations that has become replete over the last few years.
  I would not pay so much attention to it as an individual Member of 
the Congress as I normally would, except that this record, attached to 
the Turkish behavior with the Kurds, is only but the latest of other 
reported, documented, and severe human violations perpetrated by the 
Turkish Government previously, and next to the current government, in 
Cyprus, for instance. There we are in the untenable position of 
furnishing aid to a government which turns American weapons, as it 
were, on to the Cypriot population, and commits human rights violations 
there using American money and guns.
  Now, the United Nations took note of that. The international 
community, even on the floor of the Congress, there was commentary 
after commentary and action after action taken at those particular 
times. But now there is just too much. We cannot tolerate this kind of 
behavior anymore.
  The Kurds' situation allows us to begin to modify the behavior of 
Turkey with respect to that segment of the world. I have heard the 
gentleman from Florida, who wants to modify behavior in Haiti through 
this amendment process. The gentleman from Florida [Mr. Goss] seeks to 
conduct or help conduct foreign policy with respect to Haiti with the 
elections that are pending there. The gentleman from New Jersey [Mr. 
Menendez] seeks to modify, along with the help of the gentleman from 
Florida, the issue of Russia and Cuba and a nuclear reactor.
  I ask those individuals and all the remaining Members on the floor of 
the House and in their offices to pay attention to this particular 
vital issue on the Porter amendment, which can bring about a better 
future for the Kurds and to begin to curb the human rights violations 
perpetrated for decades now by the Government of Turkey.
  Mr. HALL of Ohio. Mr. Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the gentlewoman 
from California [Ms. Harman].
  (Ms. HARMAN asked and was given permission to revise and extend her 
remarks.)
  Ms. HARMAN. Mr. Speaker, we have heard a lot of talk about the 
careful tailoring in this rule for various interests, but we have not 
heard a word about the vastly popular deficit reduction lockbox. This 
is the third appropriations bill we are considering, and the third time 
the Committee on Rules has not make the lockbox in order. For that 
reason, I rise in opposition to this rule.
  The lockbox is widely popular here; 418 votes to 5 passed it as part 
of the rescissions bill. All members of the Committee on Rules voted 
for it. Most of America wants it. It is our best available tool now to 
make sure that money cut from these appropriations bills goes to 
deficit reduction.
  Just yesterday we passed the military construction appropriations 
bill. We cut over $20 million from that bill in floor amendments. None 
of that money will go to deficit reduction. All of it will be 
reprogrammed. That is wrong.
  The rule is wrong too. The lockbox should be in order. The lockbox 
should be in order under the rule on every appropriations bill, and 
should be passed, as most Members of this House wanted it to as an 
amendment to the budget act.
  So vote ``no'' on this rule and vote for the bipartisan Brewster-
Harman deficit lockbox.
  Mr. GOSS. Mr. Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the distinguished 
gentleman from Illinois [Mr. Porter].
  (Mr. PORTER asked and was given permission to revise and extend his 
remarks.)
  Mr. PORTER. Mr. Speaker, I thank my friend and colleague for 
yielding.
  Mr. Speaker, I reluctantly oppose the rule we are considering for the 
Foreign Operations bill today. I have great respect for the chairman of 
our Committee on rules and great respect for the chairman of the 
appropriations subcommittee and for the good work that he has done to 
try to find common ground in the bill, and I support the bill. But I 
cannot support a rule that will waive points of order against an 
amendment that is pure authorizing language and that will effectively 
gut our country's bilateral and multilateral population programs.
  Mr. Speaker, the Smith amendment has no place in this bill. I am, 
frankly, very surprised it was made in order under the rule. A nearly 
identical Smith amendment was adopted during consideration of the 
foreign aid authorizing bill earlier this year. While I disagreed with 
the amendment then and spoke out against it, I did not question the 
Member's right to offer it at the time. That was the appropriate bill 
and the correct forum for that debate.
  But now, however, the Committee on Rules has given extraordinary 
consideration to those who oppose voluntary family planning by making 
this amendment in order on a totally inappropriate bill. This is, in my 
judgment, not fair, since the bill as reported contains no funds 
whatsoever for abortion, no funds whatsoever for China. The Smith 
amendment confirms this, but goes further to gut the voluntary familiar 
family planning programs in the bill, harming millions of couples 
around the world.
  Mr. Speaker, I have the highest respect for the gentleman from New 
Jersey, who is my friend and colleague. And he and I and the gentleman 
from Virginia [Mr. Wolf] in fact are joining together on the amendment 
that the gentleman from Pennsylvania [Mr. Gekas] mentioned, the fact 
that we are aiding a country that is committing genocide against its 
Kurdish population. Mr. Smith and Mr. Wolf and I are joining together 
to offer an amendment that will cut aid to Turkey, who is committing 
genocide against its Kurdish population, is preventing our aid from 
reaching our allies in Armenia, and is continuing its 21 year 
occupation of the Island of Cyprus and its intransigence in helping to 
reunite that island as a country.
  So I have the greatest respect for the gentleman from New Jersey [Mr. 
Smith]. But, very frankly, his amendment does not belong on this piece 
of legislation. For that reason, I would urge the Members to send this 
rule back to the Committee on Rules for rewriting, and will have to 
oppose the rule.
  Mr. HALL of Ohio. Mr. Speaker, I yield 3 minutes to the gentleman 
from New Mexico [Mr. Richardson].
  (Mr. RICHARDSON asked and was given permission to revise and extend 
his remarks.)
  Mr. RICHARDSON. Mr. Speaker, I would like to thank the majority and 
minority of the Committee on Rules for allowing three amendments that I 
will be offering on a bipartisan basis. I also wish to thank Mr. 
Callahan and Mr. Obey and their staffs for their assistance in helping 
me deal with these amendments.
  Mr. Speaker, the open rule that we will be debating allows an open 
debate on the harsh realities that exist today in Burma. My most recent 
trip to that country was extremely disappointing on account of the 
Burmese regime's entrenchment on human rights and democratization 
efforts. As a result of this entrenchment I will be offering two 
amendments with the gentleman from California [Mr. Rohrabacher] 
intended to further isolate this repressive regime by cutting all 
counternarcotics assistance and providing additional funds for the 
refugee crisis along both sides of the Thai-Burma border.
  Burma's ruling military government has established itself as 
unquestionably the heavyweight champion of repressive governments by 
violating human rights and detaining the leader of Burma's Democrat 
movement, Aung San Suu Kyi, for the past 6 years. She courageously is 
in house arrest without any kind of prospects for being released. 
Recent efforts to obtain visas by the authors of this amendment have 
either been denied or granted only after preconditions were met. 
Leading opposition members of the National League for Democracy in 
Burma were arrested after I met with them last month.
  Perhaps as the most egregious of all human rights violations, Dr. 
Michael Aris, Aung San Suu Kyi's husband, has been denied access to his 
imprisoned wife. Just last week the International [[Page H 
6240]] Committee for the Red Cross abandoned efforts to work with the 
Burmese Government because of unacceptable conditions imposed by the 
SLORC on the activities of the Red Cross. So, after permitting the Red 
Cross to come in to inspect prisons in Burma, they were thrown out.
  What we have here is a case of a policy that right now is moving in 
the direction of dealing with the heroin crisis. That is important. But 
it does not mean that this administration or any administration should 
reward a repressive regime with counternarcotics assistance. The 
amendment that I will be offering with the support of many Members of 
the majority and minority hopefully will make sure that this does not 
happen.
  Mr. Speaker, let me conclude with a discussion of the refugee crisis 
from both sides of the Thai-Burma border that is worsening. The 
launching of an offensive against the Karen refugees this spring 
resulted in an outflow of an estimated additional 20,000 refugees to 
Thailand, bringing the population there to over 90,000.
  Mr. GOSS. Mr. Speaker, I yield 3 minutes to my distinguished 
colleague and friend, the gentlewoman from the State of Florida, Ms. 
Ileana Ros-Lehtinen.
  Ms. ROS-LEHTINEN. Mr. Speaker, I would like to thank the gentleman 
for yielding.
  Mr. Speaker, first I would like to thank the gentleman from Alabama, 
Chairman Callahan, and especially Bill Englee from the chairman's 
staff, for their great help on this very important bill. The Menendez 
amendment which was granted a waiver from the Committee on Rules is a 
correct one and not a narrow interest amendment, because I believe that 
we must use all of the instruments at our disposal to pressure the 
Russian Government to immediately halt their intentions of aiding the 
Communist regime of Fidel Castro in finishing construction of the 
Juragua nuclear powerplant in Cienfuegos, Cuba. If completed, this 
nuclear plant will pose a serious threat to the safety of the United 
States, Central America, and the Caribbean.
  Construction of the Juragua nuclear plant was halted in 1992 after 
the Castro regime was not able to obtain the foreign exchange necessary 
to finish construction. However, this past May, Russia and Cuba 
announced their intention to finish construction of this plant.
  Completion of this nuclear powerplant could constitute the 
introduction of a real and permanent threat to the health and safety of 
our hemisphere. Numerous experts, including former technicians at the 
plant now living in the United States, have denounced its inadequate 
construction, as well as inferior equipment that was used in its 
construction. Moreover, the General Accounting Office reported 
allegations in 1992 that the Juragua nuclear plant was unsafe, and 
similar Soviet style plants in Eastern Europe have already suffered 
accidents. In fact, four such plants were shut down by the German 
Government after reunification of that country.
  Mr. Speaker, we cannot allow this type of threat to the security of 
the United States to be present just a few hundred miles from our 
shores, especially in the hands of a totalitarian tyrant like Fidel 
Castro, who has no respect for the dignity of human life.
                              {time}  1630

  We must pressure the Government of Russia to stop helping the Castro 
regime in finishing construction of this nuclear plant. There are 
several amendments presented in this bill to accomplish this. Do our 
constituents want their tax dollars to build a Chernobyl-style nuclear 
facility just miles from the coast of the United States? Do our 
constituents want an unsafe nuclear reactor operated by one of the last 
Communist strongholds being built with U.S. funds? I think the answer 
clearly is ``no.''
  The Committee on Rules was correct in granting the waiver, and I urge 
a ``yes'' vote on this rule.
  Mr. HALL of Ohio. Mr. Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman 
from New Jersey [Mr. Pallone].
  (Mr. PALLONE asked and was given permission to revise and extend his 
remarks.)
  Mr. PALLONE. Mr. Speaker, I rise to express concern about a provision 
that has been included in this bill which would effectively change 
existing law through the appropriations process. The provision, which 
was put in the bill in the Subcommittee on Foreign Operations, would 
severely weaken section 907 of the Freedom Support Act of 1992. This 
provision bans direct United States Government assistance to the 
Government of Azerbaijan until Azerbaijan lifts its blockade of 
neighboring Armenia. This law made good sense when it was adopted 3 
years ago in the wake of the breakup of the Soviet Union. It is morally 
justified and in U.S. interests, It should not be gutted through the 
appropriations process.
  Mr. Speaker, the Azerbaijan blockade of Armenia has continued for 5 
years, cutting off the transport of food, fuel, medicine, and other 
commodities. This ruthless blockade has caused a humanitarian crisis 
that has required the United States to send emergency assistance to 
Armenia. At a time when Armenia is trying to move forward with major 
market reforms and integrating its economy with the West, the 
Azerbaijan stranglehold has forced a shutdown of Armenian industry, 
caused massive unemployment, and obstructed rebuilding of areas damaged 
by the 1988 earthquake. Armenian children have had to do without 
schooling, and hospitals have been unable to care for the sick and the 
dying. There is no justification for this type of behavior. American 
taxpayers should not be asked to reward or appease these actions by 
Azerbaijan.
  On the positive side, Mr. Speaker, I wish to commend the Foreign Ops 
Subcommittee,
 and in particular the gentleman from Illinois [Mr. Porter], for the 
inclusion in the legislation of language incorporating the Humanitarian 
Aid Corridor Act. This provision would deny U.S. assistance to 
countries which block the shipment of American humanitarian aid to 
other countries. This has been the case with the Republic of Turkey, 
which has maintained its own blockade of Armenia while collecting 
generous amounts of United States aid. Mr. Speaker, I think common 
sense and decency would argue that countries that block U.S. aid to 
other recipients should not themselves benefit from American largesse. 
I commend the committee for including this language, which was also 
part of the American Overseas Interests Act, and would urge Members to 
oppose any efforts to remove this provision.

  I also understand the gentleman from Illinois [Mr. Porter] has also 
an amendment to limit assistance to Turkey in part linked to its 
blockade of Armenia. I would also urge support of this amendment.
  Mr. HALL of Ohio. Mr. Speaker, I have no further requests for time, 
and I yield back the balance of my time.
  Mr. GOSS. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume.
  First of all, I would point out that some of the discussion has been 
talked about with regard to Haiti and Turkey and so forth. We are 
talking about cutting amendments, and we do have an open rule. So that 
is in the area of the spirit of things that are traditional and 
available to any Member under this type of legislation, as we all know, 
nothing really extraordinary there. And the fact that we have an open 
rule on an appropriations bill, I think, is very important for the 
deliberative process, something we promised we would do as often as 
possible.
  With regard to the concern of the gentleman from Illinois [Mr. 
Porter], on the Smith amendment, indeed we have not followed exactly 
the authorizing language because we did pass an authorizing bill and 
that is what we want to follow.
  With regard to the concern of the gentlewoman from California [Ms. 
Harman], about the lockbox, she needs to know that we are dealing with 
that issue. We have planned debate and hearings and so forth, and she 
has been advised that she will be invited to participate.
  So there is process in the legislative mill. It just does not happen 
to be ready yet for the appropriations round that we are in now. Many 
of us wish it were. I hope we get there soon. We are trying.
  Finally, I think a very important point on this rule, I do not think 
anybody has really suggested this is not fair rule, but I would point 
out that last year the Committee on Rules, this was under the previous 
majority, the Committee on Rules made in order [[Page H 6241]] only 
eight amendments on this appropriations bill, five by Republicans and 
three by Democrats. We thanked them for those five. The rule waived all 
points of order against all eight amendments. By our count, five of the 
eight involved violations of clause 2 of rule XXI. So if your concern 
is that, we are definitely making progress and doing a better job of 
getting our authorizers and appropriators in sync. I think that is 
important. I think it makes for a better product and an easier vote.
  Mr. Speaker, I yield back the balance of my time, and I move the 
previous question on the resolution.
  The SPEAKER pro tempore (Mr. Camp). The question is on ordering the 
previous question.
  The question was taken; and the Speaker pro tempore announced that 
the ayes appeared to have it.
  Mr. 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, if ordered, will be 
taken on the question of adoption of the resolution.
  The vote was taken by electronic device, and there were--yeas 221, 
nays 178, not voting 35, as follows:
                             [Roll No. 418]

                               YEAS--221

     Allard
     Archer
     Armey
     Bachus
     Baker (CA)
     Baker (LA)
     Ballenger
     Barr
     Barrett (NE)
     Bartlett
     Barton
     Bass
     Bateman
     Bereuter
     Bilirakis
     Bliley
     Blute
     Boehlert
     Boehner
     Bonilla
     Bono
     Brownback
     Bryant (TN)
     Bunn
     Bunning
     Burr
     Buyer
     Callahan
     Calvert
     Camp
     Canady
     Castle
     Chabot
     Chambliss
     Chenoweth
     Christensen
     Clinger
     Coble
     Coburn
     Collins (GA)
     Combest
     Cooley
     Cox
     Crapo
     Cremeans
     Cubin
     Cunningham
     Davis
     Deal
     DeLay
     Deutsch
     Diaz-Balart
     Dickey
     Doolittle
     Dornan
     Dreier
     Duncan
     Dunn
     Ehlers
     Ehrlich
     Emerson
     English
     Ensign
     Everett
     Ewing
     Fawell
     Fields (TX)
     Flanagan
     Foley
     Forbes
     Ford
     Fowler
     Fox
     Franks (CT)
     Franks (NJ)
     Frelinghuysen
     Frisa
     Funderburk
     Gallegly
     Ganske
     Gekas
     Gilchrest
     Gillmor
     Gilman
     Goodlatte
     Goodling
     Goss
     Greenwood
     Gunderson
     Gutknecht
     Hall (TX)
     Hancock
     Hastings (WA)
     Hayworth
     Hefley
     Heineman
     Herger
     Hilleary
     Hobson
     Hoekstra
     Hoke
     Horn
     Hostettler
     Hunter
     Hutchinson
     Hyde
     Inglis
     Johnson (CT)
     Johnson, Sam
     Jones
     Kasich
     Kelly
     Kim
     King
     Klug
     Knollenberg
     Kolbe
     LaHood
     Largent
     Latham
     Lazio
     Leach
     Lewis (CA)
     Lewis (KY)
     Lightfoot
     Linder
     Livingston
     LoBiondo
     Longley
     Lucas
     Manzullo
     Martinez
     Martini
     McCollum
     McCrery
     McInnis
     McIntosh
     McKeon
     Menendez
     Metcalf
     Meyers
     Miller (FL)
     Molinari
     Moorhead
     Morella
     Myers
     Myrick
     Nethercutt
     Neumann
     Ney
     Norwood
     Nussle
     Oxley
     Packard
     Paxon
     Petri
     Pombo
     Porter
     Portman
     Quillen
     Quinn
     Radanovich
     Ramstad
     Regula
     Riggs
     Roberts
     Rogers
     Rohrabacher
     Ros-Lehtinen
     Roth
     Roukema
     Royce
     Salmon
     Sanford
     Saxton
     Scarborough
     Schaefer
     Schiff
     Sensenbrenner
     Shadegg
     Shaw
     Shays
     Shuster
     Skeen
     Smith (MI)
     Smith (NJ)
     Smith (TX)
     Smith (WA)
     Solomon
     Souder
     Spence
     Stearns
     Stockman
     Stump
     Talent
     Tauzin
     Taylor (MS)
     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
     Zimmer

                               NAYS--178

     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
     Chapman
     Clay
     Clement
     Clyburn
     Coleman
     Collins (IL)
     Collins (MI)
     Condit
     Conyers
     Costello
     Coyne
     Cramer
     Danner
     de la Garza
     DeLauro
     Dellums
     Dicks
     Dingell
     Dixon
     Doggett
     Doyle
     Durbin
     Edwards
     Engel
     Eshoo
     Evans
     Farr
     Fattah
     Fazio
     Fields (LA)
     Filner
     Flake
     Foglietta
     Frank (MA)
     Furse
     Gephardt
     Gibbons
     Gonzalez
     Gordon
     Green
     Gutierrez
     Hall (OH)
     Hamilton
     Harman
     Hastings (FL)
     Hayes
     Hefner
     Hilliard
     Hinchey
     Holden
     Hoyer
     Jackson-Lee
     Jacobs
     Johnson (SD)
     Johnson, E.B.
     Johnston
     Kanjorski
     Kaptur
     Kennedy (MA)
     Kennedy (RI)
     Kennelly
     Kildee
     Kleczka
     Klink
     Lantos
     Lewis (GA)
     Lincoln
     Lipinski
     Lofgren
     Lowey
     Luther
     Maloney
     Manton
     Markey
     Mascara
     Matsui
     McCarthy
     McDermott
     McHale
     McKinney
     McNulty
     Meehan
     Meek
     Mfume
     Miller (CA)
     Mineta
     Minge
     Mink
     Mollohan
     Montgomery
     Moran
     Murtha
     Nadler
     Neal
     Oberstar
     Obey
     Olver
     Ortiz
     Orton
     Owens
     Pallone
     Pastor
     Payne (NJ)
     Pelosi
     Peterson (FL)
     Peterson (MN)
     Pickett
     Pomeroy
     Poshard
     Rahall
     Rangel
     Reed
     Reynolds
     Richardson
     Rivers
     Roemer
     Roybal-Allard
     Rush
     Sabo
     Sanders
     Sawyer
     Schroeder
     Schumer
     Scott
     Sisisky
     Skaggs
     Skelton
     Slaughter
     Spratt
     Stark
     Stenholm
     Stokes
     Studds
     Tanner
     Tejeda
     Thompson
     Thornton
     Thurman
     Towns
     Traficant
     Tucker
     Velazquez
     Vento
     Visclosky
     Volkmer
     Ward
     Waters
     Watt (NC)
     Waxman
     Williams
     Wilson
     Wise
     Woolsey
     Wyden
     Wynn
     Yates

                             NOT VOTING--35

     Ackerman
     Bilbray
     Burton
     Chrysler
     Clayton
     Crane
     DeFazio
     Dooley
     Frost
     Gejdenson
     Geren
     Graham
     Hansen
     Hastert
     Houghton
     Istook
     Jefferson
     Kingston
     LaFalce
     LaTourette
     Laughlin
     Levin
     McDade
     McHugh
     Mica
     Moakley
     Parker
     Payne (VA)
     Pryce
     Rose
     Seastrand
     Serrano
     Stupak
     Tate
     Torres

                              {time}  1656

  Mr. BROWN of California and Mr. VOLKMER changed their vote for 
``yea'' to ``nay.''
  So the previous question was ordered.
  The result of the vote was announced as above recorded.
  The SPEAKER pro tempore (Mr. Camp). 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 217, 
noes 175, not voting 42, as follows:
                             [Roll No. 419]

                               AYES--217

     Allard
     Archer
     Armey
     Bachus
     Baker (CA)
     Baker (LA)
     Ballenger
     Barr
     Barrett (NE)
     Bartlett
     Bass
     Bateman
     Bereuter
     Bilirakis
     Bliley
     Blute
     Boehlert
     Boehner
     Bonilla
     Bono
     Brownback
     Bryant (TN)
     Bunn
     Bunning
     Burr
     Buyer
     Callahan
     Calvert
     Camp
     Canady
     Castle
     Chabot
     Chambliss
     Chenoweth
     Christensen
     Clinger
     Coble
     Coburn
     Collins (GA)
     Combest
     Cooley
     Cox
     Crapo
     Cremeans
     Cubin
     Cunningham
     Davis
     Deal
     DeLay
     Deutsch
     Diaz-Balart
     Dickey
     Doolittle
     Dreier
     Dunn
     Ehlers
     Ehrlich
     Emerson
     English
     Ensign
     Everett
     Ewing
     Fawell
     Fields (TX)
     Flanagan
     Foley
     Forbes
     Fowler
     Fox
     Franks (CT)
     Franks (NJ)
     Frelinghuysen
     Frisa
     Funderburk
     Gallegly
     Ganske
     Gekas
     Gilchrest
     Gillmor
     Gilman
     Goodlatte
     Goodling
     Goss
     Green
     Greenwood
     Gunderson
     Gutknecht
     Hall (OH)
     Hancock
     Hastings (WA)
     Hayworth
     Hefley
     Heineman
     Herger
     Hilleary
     Hobson
     Hoekstra
     Hoke
     Horn
     Hostettler
     Hunter
     Hutchinson
     Hyde
     Inglis
     Jacobs
     Johnson, Sam
     Jones
     Kasich
     Kelly
     Kim
     King
     Klug
     Knollenberg
     Kolbe
     LaHood
     Latham
     Lazio
     Leach
     Lewis (CA)
     Lewis (KY)
     Lightfoot
     Linder
     Livingston
     LoBiondo
     Longley
     Lucas
     Manzullo
     Martini
     McCollum
     McCrery
     McInnis
     McIntosh
     McKeon
     Menendez
     Metcalf
     Meyers
     Miller (FL)
     Molinari
     Moorhead
     Murtha
     Myers
     Myrick
     Nethercutt
     Neumann
     Ney
     Norwood
     Nussle
     Oxley
     Packard
     Paxon
     Petri
     Pombo
     Portman
     Quillen
     Quinn
     Radanovich
     Ramstad
     Regula
     Richardson
     Riggs
     Roberts
     Rogers
     Rohrabacher
     Ros-Lehtinen
     Roth
     Roukema
     Royce
     Salmon
     Sanford
     Saxton
     Scarborough
     Schaefer
     Schiff
     Schumer
     Sensenbrenner
     Shadegg
     Shaw
     Shuster
     Sisisky
     Skeen [[Page H 6242]] 
     Smith (MI)
     Smith (NJ)
     Smith (TX)
     Smith (WA)
     Solomon
     Souder
     Spence
     Stearns
     Stockman
     Stump
     Talent
     Taylor (NC)
     Thomas
     Thornberry
     Tiahrt
     Torkildsen
     Torricelli
     Traficant
     Upton
     Vento
     Vucanovich
     Waldholtz
     Walker
     Walsh
     Wamp
     Watts (OK)
     Weldon (FL)
     Weldon (PA)
     Weller
     White
     Whitfield
     Wicker
     Wolf
     Young (AK)
     Young (FL)
     Zeliff
     Zimmer

                               NOES--175

     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
     Chapman
     Clay
     Clement
     Clyburn
     Coleman
     Collins (IL)
     Collins (MI)
     Condit
     Conyers
     Costello
     Coyne
     Cramer
     Danner
     de la Garza
     DeLauro
     Dellums
     Dicks
     Dingell
     Dixon
     Doggett
     Duncan
     Durbin
     Edwards
     Engel
     Eshoo
     Evans
     Farr
     Fattah
     Fazio
     Fields (LA)
     Filner
     Flake
     Foglietta
     Ford
     Frank (MA)
     Furse
     Gephardt
     Gibbons
     Gonzalez
     Gordon
     Gutierrez
     Hall (TX)
     Hamilton
     Harman
     Hastings (FL)
     Hayes
     Hefner
     Hilliard
     Hinchey
     Holden
     Hoyer
     Jackson-Lee
     Johnson (CT)
     Johnson (SD)
     Johnson, E.B.
     Johnston
     Kanjorski
     Kaptur
     Kennedy (RI)
     Kennelly
     Kildee
     Klink
     Lantos
     Lewis (GA)
     Lincoln
     Lipinski
     Lofgren
     Lowey
     Luther
     Maloney
     Manton
     Markey
     Martinez
     Mascara
     Matsui
     McCarthy
     McDermott
     McHale
     McKinney
     McNulty
     Meehan
     Meek
     Mfume
     Miller (CA)
     Mineta
     Minge
     Mink
     Mollohan
     Montgomery
     Moran
     Morella
     Nadler
     Neal
     Oberstar
     Obey
     Olver
     Ortiz
     Orton
     Owens
     Pallone
     Payne (NJ)
     Pelosi
     Peterson (FL)
     Peterson (MN)
     Pickett
     Pomeroy
     Porter
     Poshard
     Rahall
     Rangel
     Reed
     Reynolds
     Rivers
     Roemer
     Roybal-Allard
     Rush
     Sabo
     Sanders
     Sawyer
     Schroeder
     Scott
     Shays
     Skaggs
     Skelton
     Slaughter
     Spratt
     Stark
     Stenholm
     Stokes
     Studds
     Tanner
     Tauzin
     Taylor (MS)
     Tejeda
     Thompson
     Thornton
     Thurman
     Towns
     Tucker
     Velazquez
     Visclosky
     Volkmer
     Ward
     Waters
     Watt (NC)
     Waxman
     Williams
     Wilson
     Wise
     Woolsey
     Wyden
     Wynn
     Yates

                             NOT VOTING--42

     Ackerman
     Barton
     Bilbray
     Burton
     Chrysler
     Clayton
     Crane
     DeFazio
     Dooley
     Dornan
     Doyle
     Frost
     Gejdenson
     Geren
     Graham
     Hansen
     Hastert
     Houghton
     Istook
     Jefferson
     Kennedy (MA)
     Kingston
     Kleczka
     LaFalce
     Largent
     LaTourette
     Laughlin
     Levin
     McDade
     McHugh
     Mica
     Moakley
     Parker
     Pastor
     Payne (VA)
     Pryce
     Rose
     Seastrand
     Serrano
     Stupak
     Tate
     Torres

                              {time}  1705

  Mr. HALL of Texas and Mr. NADLER changed their vote from ``aye'' to 
``no.''
  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.
  

                          ____________________