[Congressional Record Volume 141, Number 170 (Tuesday, October 31, 1995)]
[House]
[Pages H11513-H11521]
From the Congressional Record Online through the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]




WAVING POINTS OF ORDER AGAINST CONFERENCE REPORT ON 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 249 and ask for its immediate consideration.
  The Clerk read the resolution, as follows:

                              H. Res. 249

       Resolved, That upon adoption of this resolution it shall be 
     in order to consider the conference report to accompany 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. All points of order against the conference report 
     and against its consideration are waived. The motion printed 
     in the report of the Committee on Rules accompanying this 
     resolution to dispose of the amendment of the Senate numbered 
     115 may be offered only by Representative Callahan of Alabama 
     or his designee. That motion shall be considered as read and 
     shall be debatable for one hour equally divided and 
     controlled by the proponent and an opponent. All points of 
     order against that motion are waived. The previous question 
     shall be considered as ordered on that motion to final 
     adoption without intervening motion or demand for division of 
     the question.

  Mr. GOSS. Mr. Speaker, for the purpose of debate only, I yield the 
customary 30 minutes to my friend, the distinguished gentleman from 
Ohio [Mr. Hall], pending which I yield myself such time as I may 
consume. During consideration of this resolution, all time yielded is 
for the purpose of debate only.
  (Mr. GOSS asked and was given permission to include extraneous 
material in the Record.)
  Mr. GOSS. Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to bring to the floor this rule 
to provide for consideration of the conference report for H.R. 1868, 
the foreign operations appropriations bill for fiscal 

[[Page H11514]]

year 1996. This is a simple, fair rule that will allow the House to 
vote on the conference report, and then on a separate motion dealing 
with the controversial issue of the restrictions on aid money for 
abortion. Specifically, as provided under House rules, we will have 1 
hour of debate on the conference report itself--including the 
traditional right of the minority to offer a motion to recommit with or 
without instructions. Immediately following the consideration of the 
conference report, the rule provides for a motion to dispose of Senate 
amendment 115--to be offered by the chairman of the Foreign Operations 
Subcommittee, the gentleman from Alabama [Mr. Callahan], or his 
designee. This motion is debatable for a full hour, and the House will 
be able to cast an up or down vote following that debate. While the 
Callahan motion might sound complex, it can be summed up as follows: 
For years, under Presidents Reagan and Bush, there were sensible--in my 
view--restrictions on the use of foreign aid funds for abortion 
purposes; this policy is known as the Mexico City policy. However, 
during consideration of this bill, the House voted in favor of stricter 
standards, and the Senate voted for more lenient standards. To arrive 
at an acceptable solution to this dilemma, the conferees have decided 
to--no surprises here-- go with the Mexico City policy. We are 
facilitating this agreement, by allowing Chairman Callahan to offer his 
motion following debate on the conference report.

  Mr. Speaker, I am especially pleased that this conference report 
contains the original Goss amendment language on Haiti that the House 
adopted 252 to 164 on the 28th of June. This language provides a 
measure of accountability for the billions of taxpayers' dollars that 
have been spent in Haiti--and continue to be spent today. This measure 
was important in June, and it remains important today--we are still not 
sure exactly how much money has been used to restore President Aristide 
and maintain the peace in Haiti. But we do know that Haiti's fledgling 
democracy is facing some immediate challenges, including: Presidential 
elections, scheduled for the end of this year, but that date is rapidly 
slipping; reform of the justice system; and privatization of the 
economy which has suffered some setbacks recently.
  Mr. Speaker, I look forward to the responsible use of the review 
mechanism provided under the Goss amendment with regard to Haiti, and I 
know other Members have other areas of concern in foreign ops as well, 
and there will be plenty of opportunity to debate them under the 
provisions of this fair and simple rule. I urge my colleagues to 
support the rule in the bill.
  Mr. Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.

                              {time}  1430

  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. Speaker, I would like to commend my colleague from Florida, Mr. 
Goss, as well as my colleagues on the other side of the aisle for 
bringing this rule to the floor.
  House Resolution 249 makes it in order to consider the conference 
report on H.R. 1868, the foreign operations appropriation bill for 
fiscal year 1996, and waives all points of order against the conference 
report. The Rules Committee reported the rule without opposition by 
voice vote.
  The joint statement of managers of the conference included $108 
million for basic education. This was a result of an amendment Mr. 
Houghton and I offered on the House floor that received 263 votes.
  During a hearing of the Rules Committee yesterday, Mr. Beilenson 
asked Mr. Callahan, chairman of the Foreign Operations Subcommittee, 
about the support of the conferees for the funding level of basic 
education. In response to the question, Mr. Callahan replied that the 
conferees would strongly insist on that funding level. I hope that AID 
follows this direction.
  I am disappointed with the large cuts in development assistance 
contained in this bill. However, I am glad that the conference 
committee earmarked $300 million for child survival and ensured that 
UNICEF would receive $100 million, and it contained a recommendation 
that basic education will receive $108 million.
  Mr. Speaker, I urge the adoption of the rule.
  Mr. Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.
  Mr. GOSS. Mr. Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.
  Mr. HALL of Ohio. Mr. Speaker, I yield 6 minutes to the gentleman 
from Wisconsin [Mr. Obey].
  Mr. OBEY. Mr. Speaker, I take the well to urge Members to vote 
against the previous question on the rule when we have the opportunity.
  Mr. Speaker, under the rule, the gentleman from Alabama [Mr. 
Callahan], or his designee, will be permitted to offer an amendment 
related to amendment number 115, which has language concerning abortion 
and the United Nations Population Agency.
  However, under the rule, Members are prohibited from offering 
amendments to that amendment. The White House has stated that if the 
language contained in the amendment by the gentleman from Alabama [Mr. 
Callahan] is included in the foreign operations bill, the President 
will veto the bill. Under those circumstances, I would like to be able 
to try to offer compromise language that I believe would make real our 
apparent passage of the conference report on foreign operations today.
  My amendment, which I ask unanimous consent to be printed in the 
Record, would take out the so-called Mexico City language, which the 
administration opposes, leaving in a prohibition on lobbying for or 
against abortion, and prohibits funds to the United Nations Population 
Fund, unless UNFPA has terminated its program in China by May 1 of 
1996.

  Mr. Speaker, permanent law already requires that none of the funds in 
this bill can be used to perform abortions. The Mexico City language 
included in the Callahan amendment purports to be related to abortion, 
but, in fact, the funds that it cuts off are family planning funds, and 
I think that is ill-advised.
  Mr. Speaker, I do not think that it is wise to proceed in that way on 
this bill. I do want to make clear, however, that the language that I 
would like to include in my amendment would allow funds to go to the 
United Nations agency involved in family planning only if that agency 
terminates its program in China by next May.
  In my view, Mr. Speaker, we need very much to separate the issues of 
family planning from the issues of abortion. In my view, those who 
describe themselves as conservatives are right to be concerned about 
the use of Federal funds for abortion, and I think they are right to be 
concerned about the abuse of government power associated with the 
Chinese program of so-called family planning, which is really coerced 
abortion.
  Mr. Speaker, I think that Members in this House, who describe 
themselves as liberals, are right to try to keep a distinction between 
abortion and family planning, but I think they are wrong if they defend 
the continued operation of the United Nations population program in 
China so long as China continues a policy that I consider to be coerced 
abortion. I think it is very important that this distinction be made.
  Mr. Speaker, I respect the views of people on both sides. I have 
almost given up the expectation that we can get a rational dialogue 
between people on either side of the abortion issue, either on this 
floor or almost anywhere else in society, because people seem to be 
more interested in shouting past each other than in working out these 
problems.
  But I do not see any sense in passing a bill which we know the 
President will veto. I do not think that we do what we say we do when 
in the name of opposing abortion, we wind up cutting off family 
planning funds. I think we ought to focus instead on the abusive 
abortion.
  I most certainly agree with that portion of the Callahan amendment 
which says that the United Nations should not be operating in China so 
long as China continues to follow its policy of coerced abortion. Any 
Member who has listened to or read accounts of what is 

[[Page H11515]]

happening in China can have no reasonable doubt that that government 
viciously, and with an incredibly heavy hand, coerces families and 
coerces women into having abortions.
  I think that the United Nations agency in the past has tried to soft-
pedal criticism of the Chinese program. In recent months I think they 
have become more realistically aware of the defects in the China 
program. I think it is nonetheless important for us to indicate that we 
will not continue to cooperate in any way with an agency that does 
business within China so long as China continues to follow that abusive 
policy.
  The only difference between my amendment on China is that we give 
them several more months in which to close down their existing 
contracts, which I think is a much more realistic approach 
administratively. I would like, if we can beat the previous question on 
the rule, to offer this amendment, which I think is a reasonable 
compromise between the two poles.
  I recognize very much that we are not likely to be able to beat that 
motion today, but I nonetheless would urge Members' support so that we 
can try to bring this bill into a position that the President will be 
able to sign it and we will accomplish what we claim we are trying to 
accomplish.
  Mr. Speaker, I insert the following for the Record:

                   Amendment to House Resolution 249

       On line 12, page 2, strike ``.'' and insert ``, except one 
     motion to amend if offered by Representative Obey of 
     Wisconsin. The text of the amendment is printed in section 2 
     of this resolution.
       Sec. 2. The text of the amendment to be offered by 
     Representative Obey is as follows:
       Mr. Obey moves that in lieu of the matter proposed by Mr. 
     Callahan, insert:
       Provided, That none of the funds made available under this 
     Act may be used to lobby for or against abortion.
       Sec. 518A. Coercive Population Control Methods.--
     Notwithstanding any other provision of this Act or other law, 
     none of the funds appropriated by this Act may be made 
     available for the United Nations Population Fund (UNFPA), 
     unless the President certifies to the appropriate 
     congressional committees that (1) the United Nations 
     Population Fund will terminate all family planning activities 
     in the People's Republic of China no later than May 1, 1996; 
     or (2) during the 12 months preceding such certification, 
     there have been no abortions as the result of coercion 
     associated with the family planning activities of the 
     national government or other governmental entities within the 
     People's Republic of China. As used in this section the term 
     ``coercion'' includes physical duress or abuse, destruction 
     or confiscation of property, loss of means of livelihood, or 
     severe psychological pressure.''

  Mr. GOSS. Mr. Speaker, I yield 4 minutes to the distinguished 
gentleman from Alabama [Mr. Callahan], the subcommittee chairman.
  Mr. CALLAHAN. Mr. Speaker, I commend not only the gentleman from 
Florida [Mr. Goss], but his excellent amendment on Haiti, which we were 
able to bring back intact in this conference agreement.
  Mr. Speaker, I also commend the Committee on Rules that has given us 
a good rule. I appreciate the consideration shown to me, and to the 
gentleman from Texas [Mr. Wilson], by the gentleman from New York [Mr. 
Solomon] and others on the Committee on Rules.
  Mr. Speaker, I know that there are some problems in this bill and 
that some Members have some problems. I am sorry that they in this 
bill, because most of the problems, if not all of the problems that we 
had in this bill, had to do with areas that we were not even involved 
in. They are involving things that should be in an authorization bill.
  Unfortunately, we have not been able to pass an authorization bill, 
so the only vehicle leaving the station is the foreign operations 
appropriations bill. But, nevertheless, and in defense of all of that, 
the bill came back from the Senate with 193 amendments to the House 
bill.
  Mr. Speaker, we negotiated long and hard and in a bipartisan manner, 
including the Democrats and the Republican members of our subcommittee, 
including the chairman of the Committee on Appropriations, to bring to 
this floor the best possible bill we could bring under the 
circumstances of having to include all of those issues that had to do 
with areas outside our jurisdiction.
  Mr. Speaker, we have done that. We have worked long and we have 
worked hard. I have worked in conjunction with the gentleman from Texas 
[Mr. Wilson] and the gentleman from Wisconsin [Mr. Obey] as well, and I 
want to congratulate those gentleman, because they have worked 
splendidly with me throughout this entire process of educating me on 
the manner and educating me on the process of passing this very 
complicated bill. Mr. Speaker, I commend them for their help.
  Mr. Speaker, I also commend the Committee on Rules for bringing a 
rule before the House that will resolve the one major difference that 
we could not resolve in the conference, and that is the issue of the 
Mexico City language.
  Mr. Speaker, we brought to the floor the best bill that we could 
possibly get. I recognize that there are some in this House, and I 
recognize that President Clinton and I recognize that the State 
Department would like to have more money, but we just do not have any 
more money.

  The American people told us loud and clearly to come to Washington 
and to cut back on Federal spending. They did not just say cut 
everything but foreign aid. They said cut everything.
  It would be irresponsible of us to come to this floor to ask for an 
increase, as President Clinton has requested. So, we have cut President 
Clinton's request by $2 billion. Yes, we did. Mr. Speaker, I am sorry 
if that impacts his foreign policy. That is not our intent. We tried to 
give the administration as much latitude as we possibly can in this 
respect.
  So, Mr. Speaker, we will debate this issue, this main issue of the 
Mexico City language, as we come to the floor. But once again let me 
encourage my colleagues to vote against the Obey motion and to vote for 
the Committee on Rules' motion that is pending here today.
  Mr. HALL of Ohio. Mr. Speaker, I yield 3 minutes to the gentlewoman 
from Colorado [Mrs. Schroeder].
  Mrs. SCHROEDER. Mr. Speaker, I rise in strong support of the Obey 
motion and hope all my colleagues will join together on this.
  Mr. Speaker, I remember the Mexico City policy. I think if we do not 
get rid of the Mexico City policy, we are really dooming all of our 
future aid programs and everything else, because this is family 
planning. Basically, the Mexico City policy overturned Richard Nixon's 
policy. It was Richard Nixon who walked out and said, ``There must be 
international family planning and we should tie it to aid.''
  When we look at Bangladesh and when we look at Egypt and when we look 
at many other places, of course there should be international family 
planning. Mr. Speaker, what we are doing here is rolling it back to the 
policy developed in the 1980's, in which any kind of family planning 
that most people would call family planning is being redesignated as an 
abortifacient. So, the only kind of family planning that we could treat 
would be like the rhythm system. They call it natural family planning, 
and in Colorado we call people who use that system parents. I mean, it 
does not work.
  So, Mr. Speaker, let us be really clear about that. We are totally 
wasting our money be saying we are training people in family planning 
and it does not work.

  Now, if my colleagues look at the threats to this globe, 
overpopulation in places like Egypt or Bangladesh, or certain places, 
are certainly a humongous threat to destabilization.

                              {time}  1445

  But there is another whole issue on the environment. We can plant all 
the trees, clean all the water, clean all the air on the globe; and, if 
we doubled the global population in 20 years, it will not make any 
difference. So we are living in this fragile environment. We have many 
people seeking this information which this Government has, and it does 
not make any sense not to make it available.
  I constantly, as the senior woman in this House, listen to elected 
women leaders from all over the globe saying American women have let 
them down because they truly want family planning information. By our 
having gone along with this Mexico City policy for years, we have 
really treated them in a very backward, ignorant, arrogant way. They 
want the information. They want the real information. They know we have 
it. Why in the world will we not make it available?

[[Page H11516]]

  I think that is what we are talking about today. The gentleman from 
Wisconsin is going to make that very clear. We are not talking 
abortion. We are talking basic family planning that every American 
would define as basic family planning. I think the White House is 
right. I certainly hope they all stand up on this, and I hope we give 
the gentleman from Wisconsin a resounding ``aye'' vote.
  Mr. GOSS. Mr. Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.
  Mr. HALL of Ohio. Mr. Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman 
from Illinois [Mr. Durbin].
  (Mr. DURBIN asked and was given permission to revise and extend his 
remarks.)
  Mr. DURBIN. Mr. Speaker, I urge all of my colleagues in the House of 
Representatives to join me in voting against this rule. Let me say why 
I am urging Members to vote against this rule.
  At issue in this bill is the policy of the United States of America 
toward the country of Azerbaijan. This is not a well-known country in 
the United States. It is well known to Armenian-Americans. Armenian-
Americans are aware of the fact that the country of Azerbaijan has 
established a blockade on Armenia for 4 years. As a direct result of 
this blockade, Armenia has lost 20 percent of its population because of 
the severe hardships which have been caused.
  The House of Representatives debated this issue several months ago 
and decided the United States should continue its policy of admonishing 
Azerbaijan for this blockade. By a voice vote we made it clear that we 
do not want to change this policy. The Senate did not raise this issue 
at all. Yet in the darkness of conference, along comes the effort to 
provide governmental assistance to Azerbaijan despite this blockade. 
This is wrong.
  It is wrong for the United States to provide assistance to Azerbaijan 
so long as they blockade Armenia. At issue here is more than just 
whether this bill will pass. At issue are the human rights of the 
people of Armenia which have been trampled on so many times in this 
century. We have a chance by defeating this rule to send it back to the 
Committee on Rules and tell them we want a separate vote on this 
disgraceful amendment.
  We have spoken on this once in the House of Representatives. We must 
speak on it again today, and the only chance we have is by defeating 
this rule. Join me in defeating this rule and making it clear that we 
object to the Azerbaijani blockade of Armenia.
  Mr. GOSS. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume.
  Mr. Speaker, I yield to the distinguished gentlewoman from California 
[Ms. Waters].
  Ms. WATERS. Mr. Speaker, first I would like to commend the gentleman 
for addressing his concerns by way of an amendment relative to Haiti. 
The gentleman has been concerned that they carry out the commitments to 
hold the election, if those elections would be done in a timely way. 
The gentleman has made that known to everyone.
  I was concerned at the time that the gentleman brought the amendment 
before the House that he did not do anything that would tie their hands 
so that, if they were working hard to be in compliance, somehow they 
would be penalized. He would cause them to be penalized if in fact they 
did not meet the letter of the law.
  I think the gentleman has done exactly what he said he would do, and 
he has spoken to substantial compliance. As you know, from the Senate 
side, the other house, funds were held up that would have been funds to 
support moving forward with those elections. So we are concerned that, 
if those elections do not take place at the exact appointed time and 
perhaps they are off a few weeks or even a few months or so, that 
somehow this would not trigger the discontinuance of all foreign aid to 
Haiti.
  So would the gentleman please, again, reiterate what he means by 
substantial compliance. Does he understand the limited difficulty they 
may be placed with in trying to move forward given that the funds have 
been held up?
  Mr. GOSS. Mr. Speaker, I accept the question, and I reclaim my time. 
I will answer, Mr. Speaker.
  The words, I think speak for themselves very well in the amendment 
about substantial compliance with the 1987 constitution. I do not think 
anybody would say that all of the X's and T's need to be crossed or I's 
need to be dotted. I am certainly not looking to some kind of an excuse 
to frustrate what is clearly forward momentum to building democracy 
there in any way, shape or form.
  The gentlewoman has properly characterized my views in trying to be 
supportive of democracy in Haiti in making sure that they understand 
that there are benefits there to complying with the constitution that 
they worked so hard to get in 1987.
  If there is some slippage in the election but they nevertheless have 
the election and peaceful turnover of power in what I will call the 
term of expectation, that those things can reasonably happen as 
foreseen by the constitution, then that, to me, is certainly 
substantial compliance.
  Does that mean that the date of December for the election is 
absolutely required and fixed? No. If there is some slippage on that, I 
think that is understandable. If there is a lot of slippage, I think it 
raises questions among prudent people; is there compliance? But I think 
we will know that. I think that will be in the eye of the beholder.
  I do not want to fix any forum. I do not want to suggest that there 
is any particular date. What I do want to suggest is that, if the 
elections are well on their way but they are not quite held in 
December, they are obviously in substantial compliance and trying to do 
the job. I look forward a peaceful turnover and a new President of 
Haiti and successful growth of democracy.
  As to the gentlewoman from California, I have been invited by 
President Aristide for the succession. I have accepted his invitation. 
He said it would be February. If it is a little later than that, that 
is OK. I prefer to be in Haiti during the winter season than the summer 
season.
  Ms. WATERS. Mr. Speaker, if the gentleman will continue to yield, I 
thank the gentleman. I think that takes care of my concern.
  Mr. GOSS. Mr. Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.
  Mr. HALL of Ohio. Mr. Speaker, I yield 3 minutes to the gentleman 
from New Jersey [Mr. Torricelli].
  Mr. TORRICELLI. Mr. Speaker, on June 29, this institution in a sense 
of moral outrage voted for an amendment offered by the gentleman from 
Indiana [Mr. Visclosky] to deny assistance to Azerbaijan in reaction, 
in outrage to the fact that it continues an illegal and immoral 
blockade against the people of Armenia.
  Our sense of outrage is understandable. Armenia is a landlocked 
country. Eighty-five percent of everything it needs to feed and to 
clothe and to warm its people comes through Azerbaijan. Five years 
since the United States originally took this position, the blockade 
being in place, they have done nothing, nothing to lift the blockade 
and stop the suffering of the Armenian people.
  Indeed, today 95 percent of the people of Armenia are living on an 
income of less than $1 a day in a harsh environment. So this House, 
knowing these facts, cast a vote insisting that the blockade be lifted. 
The other body, in debating foreign assistance as well, offered no 
contradictory provisions. There seemed to be no objections here or 
there. Yet, in the rule before us today, the Committee on Rules, having 
waived all points of order, we find that this provision is removed, and 
the Members of this House, if they approve the rule, are without 
recourse.
  We are without recourse despite the fact that the rules of this House 
specifically state that there is an action of this House, there being 
nothing contradictory in the other body; therefore the conference would 
have no contradictory provisions, that an unrelated contradictory 
provision should not be in the bill. But it is.
  We are without the ability to raise a point of order if the rule is 
enacted. Sadly, therefore, Mr. Speaker, I rise in opposition to the 
rule and remind the Members that, if they feel this continuing outrage 
in the same vote they cast in June, that this embargo is wrong. It 
should stop, consistent with our ability to deliver humanitarian 
assistance to Azerbaijan, because it is not covered but that no 
American assistance otherwise will continue unless and until the 

[[Page H11517]]

blockade is lifted. If Members continue to feel that view, there is one 
way to express themselves. That is to oppose the rule.
  Mr. GOSS. Mr. Speaker, I yield 4 minutes to the gentleman from 
Illinois [Mr. Porter].
  (Mr. PORTER asked and was given permission to revise and extend his 
remarks.)
  Mr. PORTER. Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentleman from Florida for 
yielding time to me.
  Mr. Speaker, the conference took up and considered a matter that had 
already been dealt with on the floor of the House. A vote was taken, 
and no similar provision was included in the Senate bill regarding 
humanitarian aid through the Government of Azerbaijan upon a finding 
that humanitarian assistance through nongovernmental organizations 
would be insufficient. It needs to be stressed, Mr. Speaker, that this 
language only permits humanitarian aid and does not require the 
President to provide any such aid in any event. Nonetheless, this 
provision is a grave error and should not have been included in the 
conference.
  Azerbaijan itself holds the key to providing itself with United 
States assistance, because under section 907 of the Freedom Support 
Act, they may receive assistance if they take demonstrable steps, Mr. 
Speaker, to cease their blockading of and warring with Armenia and 
Karabakh. This is the correct approach.
  The House had already considered and rejected amending section 907 
through this bill, but provisions to resume aid to Azerbaijan that were 
struck on the floor of the House during consideration of the bill in 
June were reraised in the conference. I believe that as a matter of 
procedure and as a matter of respect for the will of this body, when no 
Senate bill contained a similar provision, there should be no provision 
providing for aid to Azerbaijan other than pursuant to section 907 
before us today.
  I am sorry the rule that we are considering does not allow this 
matter to be treated under the normal procedures for items in technical 
disagreement so that this decision could be reconsidered. While I 
understand the need to move the bill forward, I would hope that, when 
ultimately it undoubtedly will go back to the conference committee, 
that this matter can be corrected.
  We should give assistance to Azerbaijan, particularly humanitarian 
assistance, but they should be forthcoming and lift their blockade on 
Armenia and Karabakh before we do so. That is exactly what the Freedom 
Support Act provides in section 907. It ought to be observed.
  I might say also, Mr. Speaker, that the conference did, in regard to 
this area, two very find things. They provided that the Humanitarian 
Corridor Act should be a part of this bill. That sends a message 
particularly to Turkey that, if they disrupt humanitarian assistance, 
they will not be entitled to any assistance from the United States; and 
that is as it should be.
  In addition, we sent a very specific message to Turkey regarding 
their treatment of their Kurdish minority, their oppression of their 
Kurdish minority, their genocide against their Kurdish minority that 
has to be heard. It has now taken the place of repressing of 
expressions of disagreement with Government policy, and people get sent 
to jail.

                              {time}  1500

  It is time that we sent that message. The bill does so. I commend the 
conferees in approving both of those sections and commend the bill.
  Mr. HALL of Ohio. Mr. Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the gentlewoman 
from California [Ms. Eshoo].
  Ms. ESHOO. Mr. Speaker, I rise this afternoon in opposition to the 
rule.
  Mr. Speaker, I would like to acknowledge the work that was done on a 
bipartisan basis many, many weeks ago. It was the very late evening of 
June 29. I believe it was an all-night session. I remember speaking on 
the floor, and I think it was about 2:30 in the morning when we debated 
this, and I think that it was one of the prouder moments for Members of 
this House as they recognized that Azerbaijan should not be rewarded 
for blockading Armenia. That blockade has imposed enormous, enormous 
human suffering on the Armenian people, and so together, from both 
sides of the aisle, we underscored that suffering, and we said that the 
House of Representatives was going to take the necessary, and 
important, and critical steps not to reward Azerbaijan for that, and so 
we went forward, and the language went forward, and it was unanimous. 
It was a voice vote of this House.
  Now in another late night, when the conference met, it was 
misrepresented that what we had sent to the conference had somehow 
changed. It has not changed, and so that is why I rise in opposition to 
the rule and all of the Members of this House should vote against this 
rule, so that we can bring back the language that we so in unified 
fashion passed that late night, and we thought then that we were 
victorious for human rights, decency. The right thing to do is that 
that language would be appropriately restored.
  I want to commend my colleagues that have worked so hard on this from 
both sides of the aisle, and this correction really does need to be 
made. We were misrepresented. The other body did not even speak on 
this; they saw that what we had done in the House that night, the night 
of June 29, should be retained, and for that reason I rise in 
opposition to the rule and ask Members to join me in voting against it.
  Mr. GOSS. Mr. Speaker, I yield 1 minute to the distinguished 
gentleman from California [Mr. Cunningham].
  Mr. CUNNINGHAM. Mr. Speaker, I am in a dilemma because I both support 
the words of the gentleman from New Jersey [Mr. Torricelli] and the 
words of the gentleman from Illinois [Mr. Porter]. I think that the 
issue of Azerbaijan and Armenia needs to be addressed. The gentleman 
from Illinois [Mr. Porter] tells me that it will go back to conference 
and it will be looked at. I hope that is the case.
  On the second point, this Member personally believes that this body 
in Congress has no reason to get involved in family planning of other 
countries. As a matter of fact, I feel, no matter what side of the 
issue one is on, it should stay out of the bedrooms of American 
citizens, and I do not think it should be funded abroad or here in 
Congress, either way, and basically stay out of it. As my colleagues 
know, it is established under Roe versus Wade, and I think this body 
ought to stay the hell out of it.
  Insofar as this bill, I would ask support of the rule, and I will 
work with the gentlemen on the other side to make sure that the 
Azerbaijan-Armenia issue is included.
  Mr. HALL of Ohio. Mr. Speaker, I yield 3 minutes to the gentleman 
from New Jersey [Mr. Pallone].
  Mr. PALLONE. Mr. Speaker, I rise also in opposition to the rule 
because it waives all points of order. Yesterday I went before the 
Committee on Rules and urged that the point of order not be waived with 
respect to my opposition to language that essentially repeals section 
907 of the Free Support Act relating to aid to Azerbaijan. Let me 
explain why I believe that this is a very serious procedural breach, if 
I can.
  As was mentioned by some of the previous speakers, we had an 
extensive debate, 2\1/2\ hours, on the night of June 29 on the issue of 
section 907. Under current law section 907 prohibits direct United 
States aid to the Government of Azerbaijan because of their blockade of 
Armenia and Karabakh. What happened in the subcommittee was that 
language was added that essentially repealed section 907 and said that 
direct government aid could be sent to Azerbaijan for humanitarian 
purposes assuming that the President decided that that was appropriate. 
We had extensive debate on the House floor on the issue, and we voted 
by voice vote overwhelmingly, to take that language out that repeals 
section 907, and during the debate on the House floor it was abundantly 
clear that we were talking about humanitarian assistance, that we were 
talking about the discretion of the President of the United States to 
grant that humanitarian assistance, and that we were talking about 
assistance that was going to go to refugees.
  Now when the conference met, new language, which is essentially the 
same as the old language, was put into the conference bill contrary to 
the vote on the floor of this House that says the same thing, that says 
that it is OK to give humanitarian assistance to refugees in Azerbaijan 
if the President decides that that is what he wants to do. 

[[Page H11518]]

There is no difference between this new language and the old language 
that was deleted by the House of Representatives. Substantively it is 
the same, and the way I understand it, that means that we should be 
able to raise the point of order today and take that language out of 
the conference bill because it is substantially the same.
  All we are asking for today, and the reason we are opposed to the 
rule, is because we are not given the opportunity to reiterate our 
opposition to this language and to reiterate what the House has already 
said. I certainly hope there will be an opportunity, if this bill is 
vetoed or if it is not passed in the Senate, to reopen the conference 
and that we will have that opportunity in some future weeks to deal 
with this again, but the bottom line is that this rule is inappropriate 
because we have the same substantive language here, and do not let 
anybody say that it is not the same. There is no question that the 
debate was complete for 2\1/2\ hours and this was understood by 
everyone.
  Mr. GOSS. Mr. Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the distinguished 
gentleman from New Jersey [Mr. Zimmer].
  Mr. ZIMMER. Mr. Speaker, I join in this protest against the disregard 
of the will of this House by the conference committee. I was a 
participant in the debate in the wee small hours of the morning of June 
29, and I do believe that, if for no other reason than out of a regard 
for the will of the Members of this House, this conference report is 
out of line.
  I protest on another ground as well, and that is that the nation of 
Azerbaijan has used the revolving-door style of lobbying to accomplish 
its legislative objectives. There have been press reports about 
Azerbaijan hiring for millions of dollars a firm headed by a former 
Member of this body, a convicted felon, who led the lobbying campaign 
to remove the provision barring aid to Azerbaijan unless it lifted the 
blockade of Armenia.
  Finally, of course, there is the substance of this matter. Azerbaijan 
has been acting in a heartless, cruel, ruthless way to try to strangle 
and destroy its neighbor. It is appropriate that the United States, in 
a demonstration of our humanitarian values, use the power and the 
leverage that we have to change the policy of Azerbaijan.
  Mr. Speaker, I believe that we got it right the first time on June 
29, and I believe it was wrong for the conference committee to 
disregard the will of this House and the will of the other body.
  Mr. HALL of Ohio. Mr. Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman 
from Indiana [Mr. Visclosky].
  Mr. VISCLOSKY asked and was given permission to revise and extend his 
remarks.)
  Mr. VISCLOSKY. Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentleman from Ohio [Mr. 
Hall] for yielding this time to me, and I rise in strong opposition to 
this rule. This rule does not allow a point of order to be raised 
against the language that would now allow direct payments to be made to 
the Government of Azerbaijan that continues to create a blockade 
against the country of Armenia. Section 907 that has been mentioned 
before is a provision that was signed into law by President George 
Bush, indicates that, as soon as that blockade is lifted, direct 
payments can be made to the government. So, as the gentleman from 
Illinois [Mr. Porter] mentioned earlier in his remarks, the key to this 
issue lies with the actions of the Government of Azerbaijan.
  Originally the House bill contained language that overrode 907 and 
would allow those direct payments to this government that continues the 
blockade of the Armenian people. That was stripped by this House by 
voice vote on the evening of June 29. The House has spoken on this 
issue, the Senate did not take this issue up, and there was no 
contention in conference, although language clearly has now been added 
back in that would allow these payments to be make directly to the 
Government of Azerbaijan without them having to lift the blockade.
  There is a lot of talk and discussion about the plight of the 
refugees. We all share that concern. But in their heart of hearts, if 
that Government of Azerbaijan was so concerned, they can lift the 
blockade, and that is the point of 907 that today, by passing this bill 
and being prohibited from raising a point of order, we are now in a 
moment going to overturn.
  I again emphasize my strong opposition to this rule because we are 
not provided an opportunity to strike the provision.
  Mr. HALL of Ohio. Mr. Speaker, I yield 3 minutes to the gentlewoman 
from California [Ms. Pelosi].
  Ms. PELOSI. Mr. Speaker, I rise in opposition to the rule, and I 
encourage our colleagues to vote against it for two reasons at least.
  One reason has been discussed by our colleagues on both sides of the 
aisle--the rule does not allow the language that is contained in the 
legislation about Azerbaijan to be considered. As our colleague from 
New Jersey [Mr. Pallone] has said, this rule waives all points of 
order.
  Our colleague, the gentleman from Texas [Mr. Wilson], made a good-
faith effort, I believe, in our conference to moderate the language 
that he was suggesting for the bill. Nonetheless, all of his good 
intentions notwithstanding, the legislation still allows for assistance 
to go to the Government of Azerbaijan. That is in opposition to the 
legislation that was passed in this body in the late-night debate where 
many Members weighed in in support of not having the funds going to the 
Government. A compromise passed which allows the funds to go 
nongovernmental organizations to support the refugees in that area.
  So I hope that the House would have the chance, once again, to work 
its will on this issue so that all sides could be heard on it. The more 
moderate amendment of the gentleman from Texas [Mr. Wilson] could be 
considered, but then the House could come closer to its original 
position.
  I also rise in opposition to the rule and urge our colleagues to vote 
against it because the House bill insists on retaining the antifamily 
family planning provisions in the foreign operations appropriations 
bill. I have great respect for the gentleman from Alabama [Mr. 
Callahan]. He masterfully crafted our legislation this year, but I 
disagree with him and with the gentleman from New Jersey [Mr. Smith], 
whom I also respect. I know the depth of their commitment on this 
issue. I just happen to disagree. I think their language stands in the 
way of our support of international family planning.
  In his early days in office, President Clinton signed an executive 
order lifting the Mexico City policy restrictions. There is no evidence 
that the number of abortions, either legal or illegal, declined under 
the Reagan era policy even though that was the goal of the policy. If 
we reject this rule, we will have an opportunity instead to vote on a 
proposal by our colleague, the gentleman from Wisconsin [Mr. Obey]. Mr. 
Obey's proposal represents a good compromise and is in furtherance of 
the goals we all have in reducing the number of abortions in the world.

                              {time}  1515

  Mr. Obey's amendment states that notwithstanding other provisions in 
the act, the funds appropriated in this act may not be made available 
for the U.N. population fund unless the President certifies to the 
appropriate congressional committees that the U.N. population fund will 
terminate all family planning activities in the People's Republic of 
China no later than May 1, 1996. For these and other reasons, I urge 
our colleagues to vote against this resolution.
  Mr. HALL of Ohio. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may 
consume to engage the gentleman from Alabama [Mr. Callahan] in a 
colloquy.
  The House passed, with 263 votes, the amendment that the gentleman 
from New York [Mr. Houghton] and myself had passed, calling for $108 
million to be spent on basic education. I notice that you have included 
in the statement of managers a reference to the funding level but have 
not included it in the actual bill language.
  My question is, do you in fact intend that the $108 million be spent 
on basic education?
  Mr. CALLAHAN. Mr. Speaker, will the gentleman yield?
  Mr. HALL of Ohio. I yield to the gentleman from Alabama.
  Mr. CALLAHAN. I would say to the gentleman, yes, I do. Mr. Speaker, 
let me explain that I realize what the House did, and I also realize 
what the House did on the recommittal, and that was to separate the two 
funds, child survival from your $108 million basic 

[[Page H11519]]

education. The Senate, as you well know, took out both, the child 
survival program, and it also took out the $108 million.
  However, we put in the report language, and I think it is very 
emphatic, it said, the conferees strongly believe that strong support 
of these programs should be maintained and that $108 million should be 
maintained for children's basic education programs. We intend to follow 
that, along with the gentleman, to make certain.
  My concern is not that the administration would not be spending $108 
million on basic education; my only concern during this entire process 
is that if we did not earmark that portion for child survival that they 
would spend more of my $450 million on basic education. So we put the 
money back in the bill, and I think it fully protects, and it fully 
displays the intent of Congress to the administration to tell them to 
spend this money in accordance with wishes and the wishes of the 
majority of the Members of the House.
  Mr. HALL of Ohio. So it is the intent of the committee in a very 
strong way that the AID spend $108 million on basic education?
  Mr. CALLAHAN. Mr. Speaker, absolutely.
  Mr. HALL of Ohio. Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentleman.
  Mr. CALLAHAN. Mr. Speaker, to respond further, just as it is the 
strong intent and direction of this House that they spend the $450 
million on child survival programs.
  Mr. HALL of Ohio. Mr. Speaker, I thank the Chairman.
  Mr. HALL of Ohio. Mr. Speaker, I yield the balance of the time to the 
gentleman from Texas [Mr. Wilson].
  Mr. WILSON. Mr. Speaker, I would like to speak in favor of the rule. 
I would like to point out that in spite of everything that has been 
said here that the conference committee language is substantially 
different from the language that was rejected on the House floor. The 
House floor language included democracy building, which is not included 
in the conference committee language. The conference committee language 
is dedicated solely to the relief of suffering refugees. That was not 
the case in the language that was rejected in the House.
  Finally and most importantly, the conference committee language 
provides for a Presidential waiver that determines and finds that 
refugee assistance is not getting to the refugees under the PVO. This 
means, of course, that basically the health institutions in Azerbaijan 
are owned by the Government and it has to be government-to-government 
assistance to get there, and it is dedicated entirely to suffering 
refugees.
  Finally, I would like to point out in all of this blockade talk that 
has kind of taken a life of its own, I would like to point out that 
Armenia now occupies 20 percent of Azerbaijan. It is not a normal 
situation for a country that occupies 20 percent of another country for 
the country that is being occupied to sell oil to the occupier, which 
is by my information the only thing that could be called a blockade, 
and that is the right to sell your oil to who you want to.
  Therefore, I want to compliment the Committee on Rules. I think it is 
a good rule. I want to compliment the chairman of our subcommittee, and 
I would urge a vote for the rule.
  Mr. GOSS. Mr. Speaker, I yield 3 minutes to the distinguished 
gentleman from New Jersey [Mr. Smith].
  Mr. SMITH of New Jersey. Mr. Speaker, I thank my good friend for 
yielding.
  Mr. Speaker, I rise in support of the rule for the foreign operations 
appropriations bill, H.R, 1868.
  Mr. Speaker, a number of my colleagues have expressed concern that 
the rule does not permit an amendment which would excise language in 
the conference report regarding assistance to refugees and displaced 
persons within Azerbaijan. When the House debated this issue on June 
28, I made a very strong statement in support of the provision allowing 
assistance through the Azerbaijani Government and entitling it to the 
suffering refugees, and there are about 1 million of those refugees. I 
remain committed to the principle of refugee assistance. My 
subcommittee oversees that on the authorizing side, and I think this 
language is a very carefully crafted piece of workmanship.
  Mr. Speaker, I encourage my colleagues to read the actual language 
that the gentleman from Texas [Mr. Wilson] put in the bill. It is 
replete with caveats and its intention is beyond doubt. I quote: 
``Assistance may be provided for the government of Azerbaijan for 
humanitarian purposes if the President determines that humanitarian 
assistance provided in Azerbaijan through NGO's is not adequately 
addressing the suffering of refugees and internally displaced 
persons.''
  The conference report states further that the assistance would be 
for, and I quote again, ``for the exclusive use of refugees and 
displaced persons.''
  My Armenian friends know well that I have fully supported provisions 
which address humanitarian concerns of their community. I was a prime 
sponsor of the Humanitarian Aid Corriders Act, offered it on the 
authorizing bill, and it passed, which is also included in this 
conference report offered by the gentleman from Florida [Mr. Goss ]. 
The sole factors, in my view, are the women and the children and the 
refugees.
  Again, I think the gentleman from Texas [Mr. Wilson] has worked out a 
very carefully crafted compromise, and I do hope that Members will vote 
in favor of this conference report, in favor of the rule.
  Just very briefly on the issue raised by Mr. Obey, the language 
dealing with the United Nations Population Fund and the Mexico City 
Policy, which Mr. Callahan will offer shortly, are the two issues that 
we have voted on and debated several times in this House, both on the 
authorizing bill and on the appropriations bill. The issue has been 
divided in the past, and the votes are very similar, and I would hope 
that Members would see fit to continue to keep these joined together.
  The conferees felt it was necessary to have one vote, up or down, on 
these two important policies. We have divided it in the past, we had 
separate votes, and those votes were decidedly in favor of the pro-life 
provisions.
  So rather than wasting the time of this body, I would hope that we 
can have our argument on those two policies without the motion that the 
gentleman from Wisconsin [Mr. Obey] would like to offer. So vote 
``yes'' on the motion as well as ``yes'' on the rule itself.
  Mr. GOSS. Mr. Speaker, I will briefly just close by saying that we 
have had clearly some evidence here that there are many matters here 
that have been very difficult. We have gone through the process to 
achieve the best balance possible. We have tried to craft a rule that 
we think is fair and reasonable. Obviously there are some loose ends 
still out there that people care about, as they always will and should. 
I notice that just about everybody who has an opinion on this who is 
involved in the conference report did sign the report, so I think we 
have made great progress on this, enough that I can say that I would 
urge support for the rule at this time which is the issue before us.
  Mr. Speaker, I yield back the time, and I move the previous question 
on the resolution.
  The SPEAKER pro tempore (Mr. Combest). 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 SPEAKER pro tempore. 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 agreeing to the resolution.
  The Sergeant at Arms will notify absent Members.
  The vote was taken by electronic device, and there were--yeas 268, 
nays 155, not voting 9, as follows:

                             [Roll No. 749]

                               YEAS--268

     Allard
     Archer
     Armey
     Bachus
     Baker (CA)
     Baker (LA)
     Baldacci
     Ballenger
     Barcia
     Barr
     Barrett (NE)
     Bartlett
     Barton
     Bass
     Bateman
     Bereuter
     Bilbray
     Bilirakis

[[Page H11520]]

     Bliley
     Blute
     Boehlert
     Boehner
     Bonilla
     Bonior
     Bono
     Borski
     Boucher
     Brewster
     Browder
     Brown (OH)
     Brownback
     Bryant (TN)
     Bunn
     Bunning
     Burr
     Burton
     Buyer
     Callahan
     Calvert
     Camp
     Canady
     Castle
     Chabot
     Chambliss
     Chenoweth
     Christensen
     Chrysler
     Clinger
     Coble
     Coburn
     Collins (GA)
     Combest
     Condit
     Cooley
     Cox
     Cramer
     Crane
     Crapo
     Cremeans
     Cubin
     Cunningham
     Davis
     Deal
     DeLay
     Diaz-Balart
     Dickey
     Dooley
     Doolittle
     Dornan
     Doyle
     Dreier
     Duncan
     Dunn
     Ehlers
     Ehrlich
     Emerson
     English
     Ensign
     Everett
     Ewing
     Fawell
     Fields (TX)
     Flanagan
     Foley
     Forbes
     Fowler
     Fox
     Franks (CT)
     Franks (NJ)
     Frelinghuysen
     Frisa
     Frost
     Funderburk
     Gallegly
     Ganske
     Gekas
     Geren
     Gilchrest
     Gillmor
     Gilman
     Goodlatte
     Goodling
     Gordon
     Goss
     Graham
     Greenwood
     Gunderson
     Gutknecht
     Hall (OH)
     Hall (TX)
     Hamilton
     Hancock
     Hansen
     Hastert
     Hastings (WA)
     Hayes
     Hayworth
     Hefley
     Heineman
     Herger
     Hilleary
     Hinchey
     Hobson
     Hoekstra
     Hoke
     Holden
     Horn
     Hostettler
     Houghton
     Hunter
     Hutchinson
     Hyde
     Inglis
     Istook
     Johnson, Sam
     Jones
     Kanjorski
     Kasich
     Kelly
     Kildee
     Kim
     King
     Kingston
     Klink
     Klug
     Knollenberg
     Kolbe
     LaFalce
     LaHood
     Largent
     Latham
     LaTourette
     Laughlin
     Lazio
     Lewis (CA)
     Lewis (KY)
     Lightfoot
     Linder
     Lipinski
     Livingston
     LoBiondo
     Lofgren
     Longley
     Lucas
     Manzullo
     Martini
     Mascara
     McCollum
     McCrery
     McDade
     McHugh
     McInnis
     McIntosh
     McKeon
     Metcalf
     Mica
     Miller (FL)
     Molinari
     Montgomery
     Moorhead
     Murtha
     Myers
     Myrick
     Nethercutt
     Neumann
     Ney
     Norwood
     Nussle
     Oberstar
     Ortiz
     Orton
     Oxley
     Packard
     Parker
     Paxon
     Payne (VA)
     Peterson (MN)
     Petri
     Pombo
     Porter
     Portman
     Poshard
     Pryce
     Quillen
     Quinn
     Radanovich
     Rahall
     Ramstad
     Regula
     Riggs
     Roberts
     Rogers
     Rohrabacher
     Roth
     Roukema
     Royce
     Salmon
     Sanford
     Saxton
     Scarborough
     Schaefer
     Schiff
     Seastrand
     Sensenbrenner
     Shadegg
     Shaw
     Shays
     Shuster
     Skeen
     Skelton
     Smith (MI)
     Smith (NJ)
     Smith (TX)
     Smith (WA)
     Solomon
     Souder
     Spence
     Stearns
     Stenholm
     Stockman
     Stump
     Stupak
     Talent
     Tate
     Tauzin
     Taylor (MS)
     Taylor (NC)
     Thomas
     Thornberry
     Tiahrt
     Upton
     Vucanovich
     Waldholtz
     Walker
     Walsh
     Wamp
     Watts (OK)
     Weldon (FL)
     Weller
     White
     Whitfield
     Wicker
     Wilson
     Wolf
     Young (AK)
     Young (FL)
     Zeliff
     Zimmer

                               NAYS--155

     Abercrombie
     Ackerman
     Andrews
     Baesler
     Barrett (WI)
     Becerra
     Beilenson
     Bentsen
     Berman
     Bevill
     Bishop
     Brown (CA)
     Brown (FL)
     Bryant (TX)
     Cardin
     Chapman
     Clay
     Clayton
     Clement
     Clyburn
     Coleman
     Collins (IL)
     Collins (MI)
     Conyers
     Costello
     Coyne
     Danner
     de la Garza
     DeFazio
     DeLauro
     Dellums
     Deutsch
     Dicks
     Dingell
     Dixon
     Doggett
     Durbin
     Edwards
     Engel
     Eshoo
     Evans
     Farr
     Fattah
     Fazio
     Filner
     Flake
     Foglietta
     Ford
     Frank (MA)
     Furse
     Gejdenson
     Gibbons
     Gonzalez
     Green
     Gutierrez
     Harman
     Hastings (FL)
     Hefner
     Hilliard
     Hoyer
     Jackson-Lee
     Jacobs
     Jefferson
     Johnson (CT)
     Johnson (SD)
     Johnson, E. B.
     Johnston
     Kaptur
     Kennedy (MA)
     Kennedy (RI)
     Kennelly
     Kleczka
     Lantos
     Leach
     Levin
     Lewis (GA)
     Lincoln
     Lowey
     Luther
     Maloney
     Manton
     Markey
     Martinez
     Matsui
     McCarthy
     McDermott
     McHale
     McKinney
     McNulty
     Meehan
     Meek
     Menendez
     Meyers
     Mfume
     Miller (CA)
     Minge
     Mink
     Mollohan
     Moran
     Morella
     Nadler
     Neal
     Obey
     Olver
     Owens
     Pallone
     Pastor
     Payne (NJ)
     Pelosi
     Peterson (FL)
     Pickett
     Pomeroy
     Rangel
     Reed
     Richardson
     Rivers
     Roemer
     Rose
     Roybal-Allard
     Rush
     Sabo
     Sanders
     Sawyer
     Schroeder
     Schumer
     Scott
     Serrano
     Sisisky
     Skaggs
     Slaughter
     Spratt
     Stark
     Stokes
     Studds
     Tanner
     Thompson
     Thornton
     Thurman
     Torkildsen
     Torres
     Torricelli
     Towns
     Traficant
     Velazquez
     Vento
     Visclosky
     Ward
     Waters
     Watt (NC)
     Williams
     Wise
     Woolsey
     Wyden
     Wynn
     Yates

                             NOT VOTING--9

     Fields (LA)
     Gephardt
     Moakley
     Ros-Lehtinen
     Tejeda
     Tucker
     Volkmer
     Waxman
     Weldon (PA)

                              {time}  1547

  Messrs. DEUTSCH, TORKILDSEN, BISHOP, Ms. BROWN of Florida, and 
Messrs. SERRANO, JEFFERSON, and BENTSEN, and Ms. RIVERS changed their 
vote from ``yea'' to ``nay.''
  Messrs. KLUG, BORSKI, RAHALL, HOLDEN, PETERSON of Minnesota, and 
OBERSTAR changed their vote from ``nay'' to ``yea.''
  So the previous question was ordered.
  The result of the vote was announced as above recorded.
  The SPEAKER pro tempore (Mr. Combest). The question is on the 
resolution.
  The question was taken; and the Speaker pro tempore announced that 
the ayes appeared to have it.
  Mr. DURBIN. Mr. Speaker, on that I demand the yeas and nays.
  The ayes and noes were ordered.
  The vote was taken by electronic device, and there were--ayes 257, 
noes 165, not voting 10, as follows:

                             [Roll No. 750]

                               AYES--257

     Allard
     Archer
     Armey
     Bachus
     Baker (CA)
     Baker (LA)
     Baldacci
     Ballenger
     Barcia
     Barr
     Barrett (NE)
     Bartlett
     Barton
     Bass
     Bateman
     Bereuter
     Bilbray
     Bilirakis
     Bliley
     Blute
     Boehlert
     Boehner
     Bonilla
     Bono
     Boucher
     Brewster
     Browder
     Brownback
     Bryant (TN)
     Bunn
     Bunning
     Burr
     Burton
     Buyer
     Callahan
     Calvert
     Camp
     Canady
     Chabot
     Chambliss
     Chenoweth
     Christensen
     Chrysler
     Clinger
     Coble
     Coburn
     Collins (GA)
     Collins (IL)
     Combest
     Condit
     Cooley
     Costello
     Cox
     Crane
     Crapo
     Cremeans
     Cubin
     Cunningham
     Davis
     de la Garza
     Deal
     DeLay
     Diaz-Balart
     Dickey
     Doolittle
     Dornan
     Doyle
     Dreier
     Duncan
     Dunn
     Ehlers
     Ehrlich
     Emerson
     English
     Ensign
     Everett
     Ewing
     Fawell
     Fields (TX)
     Flanagan
     Foley
     Fowler
     Fox
     Franks (CT)
     Franks (NJ)
     Frisa
     Frost
     Funderburk
     Gallegly
     Ganske
     Gekas
     Geren
     Gilchrest
     Gillmor
     Gilman
     Goodlatte
     Goodling
     Goss
     Graham
     Green
     Greenwood
     Gunderson
     Gutknecht
     Hall (OH)
     Hall (TX)
     Hamilton
     Hancock
     Hansen
     Hastert
     Hastings (WA)
     Hayes
     Hayworth
     Hefley
     Heineman
     Herger
     Hilleary
     Hobson
     Hoekstra
     Holden
     Horn
     Hostettler
     Houghton
     Hunter
     Hutchinson
     Hyde
     Inglis
     Istook
     Johnson (CT)
     Johnson, Sam
     Jones
     Kanjorski
     Kasich
     Kelly
     Kildee
     Kim
     King
     Kingston
     Klink
     Klug
     Knollenberg
     Kolbe
     LaFalce
     LaHood
     Largent
     Latham
     LaTourette
     Laughlin
     Lazio
     Lewis (CA)
     Lewis (KY)
     Lightfoot
     Linder
     Lipinski
     Livingston
     LoBiondo
     Lofgren
     Longley
     Lucas
     Manzullo
     Mascara
     McCollum
     McCrery
     McDade
     McHugh
     McInnis
     McIntosh
     Metcalf
     Mica
     Miller (FL)
     Molinari
     Mollohan
     Montgomery
     Murtha
     Myers
     Myrick
     Nethercutt
     Neumann
     Ney
     Nussle
     Oberstar
     Ortiz
     Orton
     Oxley
     Packard
     Parker
     Paxon
     Payne (VA)
     Peterson (MN)
     Petri
     Pombo
     Porter
     Poshard
     Pryce
     Quillen
     Quinn
     Rahall
     Ramstad
     Regula
     Riggs
     Roberts
     Rogers
     Rohrabacher
     Roth
     Roukema
     Royce
     Salmon
     Sanford
     Saxton
     Scarborough
     Schaefer
     Schiff
     Seastrand
     Sensenbrenner
     Shadegg
     Shaw
     Shays
     Shuster
     Skeen
     Skelton
     Smith (MI)
     Smith (NJ)
     Smith (TX)
     Smith (WA)
     Solomon
     Souder
     Spence
     Stearns
     Stenholm
     Stockman
     Stump
     Stupak
     Talent
     Tate
     Tauzin
     Taylor (MS)
     Taylor (NC)
     Thomas
     Thornberry
     Tiahrt
     Upton
     Vucanovich
     Waldholtz
     Walker
     Walsh
     Wamp
     Watts (OK)
     Weldon (FL)
     Weller
     White
     Whitfield
     Wicker
     Wilson
     Wolf
     Yates
     Young (AK)
     Young (FL)
     Zeliff

                               NOES--165

     Abercrombie
     Ackerman
     Andrews
     Baesler
     Barrett (WI)
     Becerra
     Beilenson
     Bentsen
     Berman
     Bevill
     Bishop
     Bonior
     Borski
     Brown (CA)
     Brown (FL)
     Brown (OH)
     Bryant (TX)
     Cardin
     Castle
     Chapman
     Clay
     Clayton
     Clement
     Clyburn
     Coleman
     Collins (MI)
     Conyers
     Coyne
     Cramer
     Danner
     DeFazio
     DeLauro
     Dellums
     Deutsch
     Dicks
     Dingell
     Dixon
     Doggett
     Dooley
     Durbin
     Edwards
     Engel
     Eshoo
     Evans
     Farr
     Fattah
     Fazio
     Filner
     Flake
     Foglietta
     Forbes
     Ford
     Frank (MA)
     Frelinghuysen
     Furse
     Gejdenson
     Gibbons
     Gonzalez
     Gordon
     Gutierrez
     Harman
     Hastings (FL)
     Hefner
     Hilliard
     Hinchey
     Hoke
     Hoyer
     Jackson-Lee
     Jacobs
     Jefferson
     Johnson (SD)
     Johnson, E. B.
     Johnston
     Kaptur
     Kennedy (MA)
     Kennedy (RI)
     Kennelly
     Kleczka
     Lantos
     Leach
     Levin
     Lewis (GA)
     Lincoln
     Lowey
     Luther
     Maloney
     Manton
     Markey
     Martinez
     Martini

[[Page H11521]]

     Matsui
     McCarthy
     McDermott
     McHale
     McKeon
     McKinney
     McNulty
     Meehan
     Meek
     Menendez
     Meyers
     Mfume
     Miller (CA)
     Minge
     Mink
     Moorhead
     Moran
     Morella
     Nadler
     Neal
     Obey
     Olver
     Owens
     Pallone
     Pastor
     Payne (NJ)
     Pelosi
     Peterson (FL)
     Pickett
     Pomeroy
     Radanovich
     Rangel
     Reed
     Richardson
     Rivers
     Roemer
     Rose
     Roybal-Allard
     Rush
     Sabo
     Sanders
     Sawyer
     Schroeder
     Schumer
     Scott
     Serrano
     Sisisky
     Skaggs
     Slaughter
     Spratt
     Stark
     Stokes
     Studds
     Tanner
     Thompson
     Thornton
     Thurman
     Torkildsen
     Torres
     Torricelli
     Towns
     Traficant
     Velazquez
     Vento
     Visclosky
     Ward
     Waters
     Watt (NC)
     Waxman
     Williams
     Wise
     Woolsey
     Wyden
     Wynn
     Zimmer

                             NOT VOTING--10

     Fields (LA)
     Gephardt
     Moakley
     Norwood
     Portman
     Ros-Lehtinen
     Tejeda
     Tucker
     Volkmer
     Weldon (PA)

                              {time}  1556

  Mr. FRELINGHUYSEN changed his vote from ``aye'' to ``no.''
  Mr. de la GARZA and Mr. OBERSTAR changed their vote from ``no'' to 
``aye.''
  So the resolution was agreed to.
  The result of the vote was announced as above recorded.
  A motion to reconsider was laid on the table.

                          ____________________