[Congressional Record Volume 143, Number 75 (Wednesday, June 4, 1997)]
[House]
[Pages H3281-H3291]
From the Congressional Record Online through the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]




      PROVIDING FOR CONSIDERATION OF H.R. 1757, FOREIGN RELATIONS 
AUTHORIZATION ACT, FISCAL YEARS 1998 AND 1999, AND H.R. 1758, EUROPEAN 
                          SECURITY ACT OF 1997

  Mr. DIAZ-BALART. Mr. Speaker, by direction of the Committee on Rules, 
I call up House Resolution 159 and ask for its immediate consideration.
  The Clerk read the resolution, as follows:

                              H. Res. 159

       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. 1757) to consolidate international affairs 
     agencies, to authorize appropriations for the Department of 
     State and related agencies for fiscal years 1998 and 1999, 
     and for other purposes. The first reading of the bill shall 
     be dispensed with. General debate shall be confirmed to the 
     bill and shall not exceed one hour equally divided and 
     controlled by the chairman and ranking minority member of the 
     Committee on International Relations. After the general 
     debate the bill shall be considered for amendment under the 
     five-minute rule. The bill shall be considered by title 
     rather than by section. Each title of the bill shall be 
     considered as read. The Chairman of the Committee of the 
     Whole may: (1) postpone until a time during further 
     consideration in the Committee of the Whole a request for a 
     recorded vote on any amendment; and (2) reduce to five 
     minutes the minimum time for electronic voting on any 
     postponed question that follows another electronic vote 
     without intervening business, provided that the minimum time 
     for electronic voting on the first in any series of questions 
     shall be fifteen minutes. 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 on the 
     bill and amendments thereto of final passage without 
     intervening motion except one motion to recommit with or 
     without instructions.
       Sec. 2. After disposition of H.R. 1757 it shall be in order 
     to consider in the House the bill (H.R. 1758) to ensure that 
     the enlargement of the North Atlantic Treaty Organization 
     (NATO) proceeds in a manner consistent with the United States 
     interests, to strengthen relations between the United States 
     and Russia, to preserve the prerogatives of the Congress with 
     respect to certain arms control agreements, and for other 
     purposes. The bill shall be debatable for one hour equally 
     divided and controlled by the Chairman and ranking minority 
     member of the Committee on International Relations. The 
     previous question shall be considered as ordered on the bill 
     to final passage without intervening motion except one motion 
     to recommit.
       Sec. 3. (a) In the engrossment of H.R. 1757, the Clerk 
     shall--
       (1) await the disposition of H.R. 1758 pursuant to section 
     2 of this resolution;
       (2) add the text of H.R. 1758, as passed by the House, as 
     new matter at the end of H.R. 1757;
       (3) conform the title of H.R. 1757 to reflect the addition 
     of the text of H.R. 1758 to the engrossment;
       (4) assign appropriate designations to titles within the 
     engrossment; and
       (5) conform provisions for short titles within the 
     engrossment.
       (b) Upon the addition of the text of H.R. 1758 to the 
     engrossment of H.R. 1757, H.R. 1758 shall be laid on the 
     table.

  The SPEAKER pro tempore (Mr. Hobson). The gentleman from Florida [Mr. 
Diaz-Balart] is recognized for 1 hour.
  Mr. DIAZ-BALART. 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 purpose 
of debate only.
  Mr. Speaker, H.R. 159 provides for the consideration of two bills 
dealing with foreign policy reform. The first bill, H.R. 1757, the 
Foreign Relations Authorization Act, fiscal years 1998 and 1999, is to 
be considered under an open rule providing for 1 hour of general 
debate, equally divided and controlled between the chairman and ranking 
member of the Committee on International Relations.
  The rule further provides for consideration of the bill for amendment 
under the 5-minute rule, considering the bill by title rather than by 
section, and each title shall be considered as read. Also, under this 
open rule, in

[[Page H3282]]

which any Member will be free to offer germane amendments, the chairman 
of the Committee of the Whole is allowed to postpone votes during 
consideration of the bill and to reduce votes to 5 minutes on a 
postponed question if the vote follows a 15-minute vote.
  In addition, this portion of the rule provides for one motion to 
recommit H.R. 1757, with or without instructions. The rule also 
provides, in section 2, Mr. Speaker, for consideration by the House of 
a second bill, H.R. 1758, the European Security Act of 1997, under a 
closed rule providing for 1 hour of debate, equally divided and 
controlled by the chairman and ranking minority member of the Committee 
on International Relations. Further, the rule provides for one motion 
to recommit H.R. 1758.
  Finally, section 3 of the rule provides that in the engrossment of 
H.R. 1757, the Clerk shall await the disposition of H.R. 1758, pursuant 
to section 2 of the rule; the Clerk shall add the text of H.R. 1758, as 
passed by the House, as a new matter at the end of H.R. 1757; and make 
conforming and designation changes to the titles within engrossment.
  Lastly, the rule provides that upon the addition of the text of H.R. 
1758 to the engrossment of H.R. 1757, H.R. 1758 shall be laid on the 
table.
  I would like to note that this rule is the best compromise available 
for dealing with the myriad of issues that are before us in foreign 
policy reform legislation in an orderly fashion. Our committee heard 
testimony from over two dozen Members on a variety of subjects, with a 
wide range of views, and their testimony was not in vain.
  The State Department portion of H.R. 1486 is essentially H.R. 1757, 
the first bill provided for in this rule. The rule will enable any 
Member wishing to amend the reauthorization of the State Department the 
ability to do so under an open rule amending process. H.R. 1758 is 
essentially the amendment filed with the Committee on Rules back on May 
13, when the committee announced that Members should submit amendments 
for a possible structured rule. Chairman Gilman filed this language, 
which was amendment No. 85, which concerns NATO expansion, a critically 
important piece of legislation. Just as in the amendment filed by 
Chairman Gilman, the bill is entitled the ``European Security Act of 
1997.''
  As for the portions of H.R. 1486 dealing with the remaining foreign 
policy issues, for which we also heard testimony on Tuesday, the 
Committee on Rules will meet in the near future to mark up and grant a 
rule to consider those important matters.
  This rule, Mr. Speaker, is not without precedent. In the 103d 
Congress, the Committee on Rules split the issue and considered a State 
Department bill and a foreign aid bill, given the complex nature of the 
issues and the difficulty in passing these proposals. This was done 
under Chairman Hamilton, and both bills were considered under a 
structured rule.
  I look forward to a vigorous debate on these bills and fully support 
the rule that makes them both possible. The State Department 
authorization bill, Mr. Speaker, contains very important reforms. It 
includes reporting requirements for title 4 under the Cuban Liberty and 
Democratic Solidarity Act. It makes sure that enforcement is actually 
carried out on that very important piece of legislation. It also has 
provisions to make extraordinarily difficult assistance for completion 
by the Cuban dictator of the nuclear powerplants that he is trying to 
complete in obvious contravention in the national security interests of 
the United States.
  Obviously, the European Security Act of 1997 is also extraordinarily 
important, and I think that it is very, very appropriate that Congress 
is moving forward at this point on that very, very important and 
delicate piece of legislation. I would urge adoption of H.R. 159.
  Mr. Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.

                              {time}  1245

  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, I want to thank the gentleman from 
Florida [Mr. Diaz-Balart] for yielding me this time.
  Mr. Speaker, a funny thing happened in the Committee on Rules last 
night. For 3\1/2\ hours we took testimony on H.R. 1486, the Foreign 
Policy Reform Act. This reauthorized the State Department and related 
agencies. It also reauthorized foreign aid programs.
  We heard from 29 witnesses which sparked serious discussion among the 
committee members. After all, the committee had announced that only a 
limited number of amendments would be made in order, and Members came 
ready to argue and debate their case.
  But at 8:30 last night, at the conclusion of the hearing, H.R. 1486, 
the Foreign Policy Reform Act, disappeared. Instead, plopped on our 
desk was H.R. 1757, which is the Foreign Relations Authorization Act, 
which is a 185-page bill fresh from the printer, never before seen by 
anyone in the room. This, we were told, reauthorized the State 
Department and related agencies and might have included language 
similar to the original bill.
  We also received fresh copies of H.R. 1758, which is the European 
Security Act of 1997, which contained the text of one of the previously 
submitted amendments to the Foreign Policy Reform Act, and the 
Committee on Rules had heard perhaps several seconds, maybe a minute or 
two of testimony on that amendment earlier in the day. But this also 
was a 16-page bill.
  The Committee on Rules proceeded to vote on a rule making the two new 
bills in order.
  I offered an amendment so that the House could bring up H.R. 1486, 
the Foreign Policy Reform Act, under an open rule. This is the bill we 
heard for 3\1/2\ hours. This is the bill that 29 witnesses testified 
on. This was the bill that we all expected to come to the floor today.
  But on a straight party line record vote, the Republican majority 
defeated this amendment. Instead, they rammed through this bizarre 
process allowing a mystery bill and one amendment to move forward as 
two separate bills, one of them under a closed rule.
  The vote on the rule was also approved on a party line record vote 
with the Democrats opposed. The foreign aid section of the original 
bill was gone, vanished. Maybe it was put on a shelf someplace or left 
in a desk. Most of the witnesses during the hearing had testified on 
the foreign aid section of the bill, and most of the 120 amendments 
submitted to the Committee on Rules amended that section.
  I am not saying that the members of the Committee on Rules wasted our 
time taking testimony yesterday on a bill that had already been thrown 
out, nor am I saying that the 29 Members who testified wasted their 
time at a sham hearing. It is possible that a foreign aid authorization 
bill will at some point in this session come forward out of limbo and 
appear before the House. Then we will have not wasted our time. But I 
would not say that we should hold our breath.
  Is it not ironic that this bill in which we authorize agencies that 
promote democracy is handled in such an undemocratic manner? This kind 
of procedure is unfair to the members of the Committee on Rules, it is 
unfair to the Members who testified, it is unfair to all House Members 
who are confronted with a new bill and have only hours to read it and 
prepare new amendments. Furthermore, it undermines the credibility of 
the Committee on Rules and the committee system.
  If the Committee on Rules is going to report out bills that we have 
never seen, we do not need a Committee on Rules. Perhaps instead we 
should appoint a search committee to find what happened to the Foreign 
Policy Reform Act, and maybe some of the House Members who testified 
yesterday would like to serve on such a committee.
  Mr. Speaker, I do not know whether H.R. 1757 is a good bill or not. 
It is pretty hard to absorb a 185-page bill overnight. But I do know 
that the process is not good. I urge my colleagues to vote ``no'' on 
the previous question.
  Mr. Speaker, this vote, the vote on whether to order the previous 
question on a special rule, is not merely a procedural vote.
  A vote against ordering the previous question is a vote against the 
Republican majority agenda and a vote to allow the opposition, at least 
for the moment, to offer an alternative plan.
  It is a vote about what the House should be debating. The vote on the 
previous question on a rule does have substantive policy implications. 
It is one of the only available tools for

[[Page H3283]]

those who oppose the Republican majority's agenda to offer an 
alternative plan.
  I include the following material in the Record at this point:

        The Vote on the Previous Question: What it Really Means

       This vote, the vote on whether to order the previous 
     question on a special rule, is not merely a procedural vote. 
     A vote against ordering the previous question is a vote 
     against the Republican majority agenda and a vote to allow 
     the opposition, at least for the moment, to offer an 
     alternative plan. It is a vote about what the House should be 
     debating.
       Mr. Clarence Cannon's Precedents of the House of 
     Representatives, (VI, 308-311) describes the vote on the 
     previous question on the rule as ``a motion to direct or 
     control the consideration of the subject before the House 
     being made by the Member in charge.'' To defeat the previous 
     question is to give the opposition a chance to decide the 
     subject before the House. Cannon cites the Speaker's ruling 
     of January 13, 1920, to the effect that ``the refusal of the 
     House to sustain the demand for the previous question passes 
     the control of the resolution to the opposition'' in order to 
     offer an amendment. On March 15, 1909, a member of the 
     majority party offered a rule resolution. The House defeated 
     the previous question and a member of the opposition rose to 
     a parliamentary inquiry, asking who was entitled to 
     recognition. Speaker Joseph G. Cannon (R-Illinois) said: 
     ``The previous question having been refused, the gentleman 
     from New York, Mr. Fitzgerald, who had asked the gentleman to 
     yield to him for an amendment, is entitled to the first 
     recognition.''
       Because the vote today may look bad for the Republican 
     majority they will say ``the vote on the previous question is 
     simply a vote on whether to proceed to an immediate vote on 
     adopting the resolution . . . [and] has no substantive 
     legislative or policy implications whatsoever.'' But that is 
     not what they have always said. Listen to the Republican 
     Leadership Manual on the Legislative Process in the United 
     States House of Representatives, (6th edition, page 135). 
     Here's how the Republicans describe the previous question 
     vote in their own manual:
       Although it is generally not possible to amend the rule 
     because the majority Member controlling the time will not 
     yield for the purpose of offering an amendment, the same 
     result may be achieved by voting down the previous question 
     on the rule . . . When the motion for the previous question 
     is defeated, control of the time passes to the Member who led 
     the opposition to ordering the previous question. That 
     Member, because he then controls the time, may offer an 
     amendment to the rule, or yield for the purpose of 
     amendment.''
       Deschler's Procedure in the U.S. House of Representatives, 
     the subchapter titled ``Amending Special Rules'' states: ``a 
     refusal to order the previous question on such a rule [a 
     special rule reported from the Committee on Rules] opens the 
     resolution to amendment and further debate.'' (Chapter 21, 
     section 21.2) Section 21.3 continues:
       Upon rejection of the motion for the previous question on a 
     resolution reported from the Committee on Rules, control 
     shifts to the Member leading the opposition to the previous 
     question, who may offer a proper amendment or motion and who 
     controls the time for debate thereon.''
       The vote on the previous question on a rule does have 
     substantive policy implications. It is one of the only 
     available tools for those who oppose the Republican 
     majority's agenda to offer an alternative plan.

  Mr. Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.
  Mr. DIAZ-BALART. Mr. Speaker, I yield such time as he may consume to 
the gentleman from New York [Mr. Solomon], the chairman of the 
Committee on Rules.
  Mr. SOLOMON. Mr. Speaker, I appreciate the gentleman yielding me this 
time.
  Mr. Speaker, I am surprised to hear and I am sorry to hear my good 
friend, the gentleman from Ohio [Mr. Hall], a member of the Committee 
on Rules, characterize this procedure as undemocratic. I want to just 
remind the gentleman of a pledge that I made on this floor on opening 
day 3 years ago, and that was that this Committee on Rules would be at 
least as fair and try to be more fair to the Democrats than we 
Republicans were treated when they were in the majority. We have tried 
to live up to that.
  This procedure here today is almost an identical procedure that was 
used during the last years of the Democratic majority on this floor. 
Let me explain what has happened here. We had before us a combination 
bill, the State Department Authorization and Reorganization Act coupled 
with the foreign aid bill. That is the bill that came before the 
Committee on Rules.
  It was obvious from the fact that 120 amendments were filed with the 
committee, 105 of them in opposition to the position taken on the 
foreign aid bill, and only 15 to the other section, the State 
Department bill, that this measure would never pass the House and would 
go down to defeat, and we would never have an opportunity to even 
discuss the State Department authorization portion of the bill or the 
European Security Act, which is a terribly, terribly important piece of 
legislation that we must give to the President of the United States in 
order to give him the strength to deal with our other NATO allies in 
opening the door to NATO expansion.
  Therefore, it was the wisdom of the Committee on Rules that we would 
strip out the foreign aid bill, leaving it there for a future action by 
the Committee on Rules. In the meantime, all of the witnesses have 
appeared, they have testified on behalf of their amendments. They do 
not have to do this over again. When we are ready to put the foreign 
aid bill on the floor, all of those amendments will be considered in 
consultation with the Democrats and will appear on the floor of this 
House.
  In the meantime, we now have an open rule on this floor right now so 
that any Member offering amendments and testifying yesterday will be 
able to offer those amendments today, including other amendments that 
they did not even file with the Committee on Rules. That is much more 
fair than what happened in 1993.
  There is another portion to the rule which brings a bill to the floor 
that was an amendment to the measure pending before the Committee on 
Rules, and that was an amendment by the gentleman from New York [Mr. 
Gilman], which was the European Security Act.
  In order to make sure that this is going to be a part of the bill 
that is sent to the Senate where we have opposition by, and I am not 
supposed to mention Members of the other body, but Senator Kennedy, who 
absolutely opposes any kind of NATO expansion, the only way we can 
guarantee that we will give the President the opportunity to receive 
this European Security Act is to attach it to this bill. That is what 
we are going to do. We are going to have an up-or-down vote on the 
European Security Act.
  Let me just briefly tell my colleagues what that is. Two years ago, 
this body by an overwhelming vote passed the NATO Participation Act 
which named four countries, they were Slovenia, Hungary, Poland, and 
the Czech Republic, to be able to receive some help in order for them 
to upgrade their military from out of the Russian influence and into 
the NATO influence, to communicate and interoperate, and this bill was 
passed overwhelmingly by this body.
  This year, after consultation with President Clinton, I spoke to him 
for almost an hour on this before he went to Helsinki and before we 
went into the former Soviet republics, we agreed that the door would 
remain open to all of these former Soviet bloc countries who had made 
irreversible progress toward democracy, who had moved toward a free 
market economy with the privatization and capitalization of their 
industries, who supported human rights and the rule of law, and then 
were able to militarily participate. In order to keep that door open, 
that is why we have this bill on the floor today.
  It expands those four countries to four more countries. They are 
Latvia, Lithuania, Estonia, and Romania, all of which have made great 
progress and deserve to have the opportunity to join NATO. This bill 
will give them some additional funds in order to help them, again, 
communicate and interoperate with the NATO forces, and that is why we 
are here today.
  It is totally fair. It is an open rule on every single amendment that 
wants to be offered germane to the State Department authorization bill, 
and an up-or-down vote on this important issue.
  Mr. HALL of Ohio. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may 
consume, just in reaction to the chairman. We had 29 witnesses. We 
stayed here until, I do not know how late last night, maybe 8:30, a 
quarter to 9. There were 120 amendments offered. It was almost like 
pretty much a waste of time, because that bill for the most part, as 
the gentleman knows, is pretty much dead. That bill has about as much 
chance of passing, that foreign aid section of the bill, than a man in 
the Moon. I think everybody knows that. I think if I were the chairman 
of the Committee on International Relations and to have a bill that I 
had worked so

[[Page H3284]]

long on, so hard on, to have it be tangled up and confused and messed 
up and separated like this, I would be amazed. I would be jumping up 
and down.
  The other section of the bill that the gentleman just talked about 
was 17 pages long. That was an amendment that was one amendment of the 
gentleman from New York [Mr. Gilman]. He had 20 amendments that he 
offered to his own bill yesterday in the Committee on Rules and he 
probably spoke less than a minute on that particular amendment. That 
amendment came back in the form of a bill, of which the gentleman now 
closes down, of which we are seeing for the first time. We have never 
seen it before. As a matter of fact, I do not even know that this whole 
bill put together is available. I have a copy, but I am on the 
Committee on Rules. I do not think it is available for Members to be 
able to actually logically amend it in a way in which we understand 
because this bill was put together last night. It is very difficult to 
be in the amending process on this particular bill now. If the 
gentleman talks to the parliamentarian, he will find that out.
  Mr. Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.
  Mr. DIAZ-BALART. Mr. Speaker, I yield such time as he may consume to 
the gentleman from New York [Mr. Solomon], the chairman of the 
Committee on Rules.
  Mr. SOLOMON. Mr. Speaker, very briefly, that amendment, the European 
Security Act, has been pending before the Committee on Rules and before 
every Member of this Congress since May 13, that is almost 20 days, for 
any Member to have read that amendment and to know exactly what it is. 
If the amendment were coming on the floor as a part of this bill, it 
would be limited as an amendment unamendable, and that is exactly what 
we are doing now.
  I just think the gentleman protests too much. I believe he is going 
to vote for the European Security Act. It is a good bill, and this body 
will pass it overwhelmingly.
  Mr. HALL of Ohio. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may 
consume.
  This bill has never had a hearing. It never had a hearing in the 
Committee on International Relations. It never had a hearing in the 
Committee on Rules.
  Mr. SOLOMON. Neither have any of the other amendments that will be 
offered here today.
  Mr. HALL of Ohio. But it is a closed bill, the gentleman closed it, 
and all the other kinds of amendments and everything that was done 
yesterday was completely wiped out. We will probably never see that 
bill again.
  Mr. Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.
  Mr. DIAZ-BALART. Mr. Speaker, I yield 5 minutes to the gentleman from 
New York [Mr. Gilman], the distinguished chairman of the Committee on 
International Relations.
  (Mr. GILMAN asked and was given permission to revise and extend his 
remarks.)
  Mr. GILMAN. I thank the gentleman for yielding me this time.
  Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to rise in strong support of the rule on 
H.R. 1757, the Foreign Relations Authorization Act. This bill is in 
essence Division B of H.R. 1486, the Foreign Policy Reform Act, that 
was before all of us as part of the overall Foreign Policy Reform Act. 
It is nothing new in this measure. It has just been divided now. It has 
been reported out of our Committee on International Relations on May 6, 
1997, after a wide-open consideration process that extended over 3 days 
in which all of our members, both the majority and minority, took a 
very active part in debate. Division B of the bill was the subject of 
open consideration in the Subcommittee on International Operations and 
Human Rights, chaired by the gentleman from New Jersey [Mr. Smith].

                              {time}  1300

  We have added a provision dealing with the State Department 
reorganization. Regrettably it has become necessary to divide the 
consideration of our reported bill into two bills. We had merely 
divided the original bill into two measures in order to expedite 
passage of this, and we are committed to bringing the foreign aid 
provision before this body within the next week or two.
  The rule also makes in order consideration of the European Security 
Act, H.R. 1758.
  My colleagues should be reminded that this is the 50th anniversary of 
the Marshall plan in which, under the leadership of Senator Arthur 
Vandenberg, the U.S. Congress made certain that we would not lose our 
focus on the outside world after the end of World War II. At the end of 
the cold war, we should follow the example of Senator Vandenberg and 
not take the isolationist impulse that seemed to take hold of our body 
politic after the end of World War I.
  Our Speaker has noted that we are the only nation that can lead the 
world. Our President calls us the indispensable Nation. These are two 
ways of saying the same thing. We must take our place in the world in a 
constitutional democracy that requires law and resources. The House of 
Representatives must make the tough decisions required to provide both 
in the interests of our Nation.
  Let me note that this bill, including the reorganization provisions 
that we plan to add, has been endorsed by former Secretaries of State 
Eagleburger, Secretary Baker, Secretary Shultz, Secretary Haig, and 
Secretary Kissinger, as well as former National Security Adviser 
General Scowcroft and Gen. Colin Powell.
  This bill was developed in close consultation with the administration 
and with the minority. It makes, or by the time the amending process 
concludes, will make several important reforms in our Nation's foreign 
policy. One of those key reforms includes carrying into effect the 
administration's announcement that it wants to merge two foreign 
affairs agencies into the State Department, which we are proposing by 
an amendment.
  We have several items in the bill designed to pressure the Castro 
regime by helping to enforce the Libertad or Helms-Burton Act.
  We also have a provision to begin the process of tightening up on 
abuses of diplomatic immunity, offered by our colleague, the gentleman 
from California [Mr. Dreier]. Because of this provision, H.R. 1486 has 
even been endorsed by Mothers Against Drunk Driving.
  We agreed to accommodate the administration's total funding request, 
although we added funds in some areas and did not provide full funding 
in others.
  Mr. Speaker, I am requesting our colleagues to help us manage this 
open rule process by conferring with our staff about any amendments 
that anyone may wish to offer.
  I will be offering an amendment to the bill to accommodate certain 
concerns of the Committee on Ways and Means. We did not make this 
change in the introduced bill because we wanted the introduced bill to 
mirror as fully as possible the bill that has been reported out by the 
committee.
  Mr. Speaker, I appreciate the efforts of the gentleman from Florida 
[Mr. Diaz-Balart] who is managing this rule and the efforts of the 
gentleman from New York [Mr. Solomon], our distinguished chairman of 
the Committee on Rules. Accordingly, I urge my colleagues to support 
the rule and these bills, H.R. 1757 and H.R. 1758, so that we may make 
a major impact in reforming our State Department.
  Mr. HALL of Ohio. Mr. Speaker, I yield 4 minutes to the gentleman 
from Wisconsin [Mr. Obey].
  Mr. OBEY. Mr. Speaker, it is hard for me to tell today whether I am 
participating in a session of the House of Representatives or a 
national seance. I mean this bill is going absolutely nowhere. It 
reminds me of the fellow who was so unlucky that he ran into accidents 
that started out to happen to somebody else. We do not even have a bill 
here.
  The committee produced a bill; the Committee on Rules then ripped out 
the guts of it, which is the foreign aid authorization. It contains the 
unilateral partisan description of the administration's agreement on 
State Department reorganization, and then it also contains what I 
regard as an historically arrogant action on the part of the Congress 
and the West in expanding NATO the way it is expanding.
  This bill is going absolutely nowhere, and so I am going to ask 
Members to vote against the previous question on the rule in hopes that 
if that previous

[[Page H3285]]

question goes down, we will be able to add a third bill for 
consideration by the House. That bill would be simply to see to it that 
we can take up the contents of the conference report which has been 
agreed to so far relating to the emergency supplemental items now 
before the Congress, stripping that conference product of the three 
extraneous partisan riders which are going to assure that that 
conference report will go to the same place that this bill is going to 
go: nowhere.
  It just seems to me that since that conference report with those 
riders is going nowhere and the bill that this rule seeks to bring to 
the House is going to go nowhere, we ought to at least try to bring 
some degree of reality to the House floor. And I would seek to do that 
by simply bringing to the floor the contents of H.R. 1755 which would 
take all of the items that have been agreed to in conference on the 
emergency supplemental, minus those controversial partisan riders, and 
give the House an opportunity to pass that. At least then we would be 
doing something real for the sections of the country who need immediate 
relief because of the flooding which they have experienced.
  Mr. Speaker, I would point out that that is truly an emergency. 
Bringing this bill before us today represents absolutely no response 
whatsoever, no meaningful response to any serious problem. If we bring 
this rule down or bring the previous question down so that we can amend 
the rule, then at least we would be bringing something to the floor 
which would have some meaning for somebody. That might be a very rare 
occurrence, given what the legislative schedule is this week, but at 
least we could produce one piece of legislation which did something 
real for somebody somewhere, rather than this proposal which does 
nothing real for anyone anywhere.
  I would urge that when the previous question vote comes that my 
colleagues vote against the previous question so that we can take into 
account the fact that we do have emergencies that need responding to, 
we do have emergency needs for accelerated crop planting, we do have 
emergency needs for livestock rehabilitation, we do have emergency 
needs for people to be able to plan with respect to housing funds to 
fix some of the damage done by these floods. It seems to me if the 
House is intending to bring two relatively unrelated bills to the 
floor, as they are planning today under this rule, we might as well add 
a third, because at least that third will do something for somebody.
  Mr. DIAZ-BALART. Mr. Speaker, I would inquire as to the balance of 
time remaining.
  The SPEAKER pro tempore (Mr. Goodlatte). The gentleman from Florida 
[Mr. Diaz-Balart] has 15 minutes remaining, and the gentleman from Ohio 
[Mr. Hall] has 18\1/2\ minutes remaining.
  Mr. DIAZ-BALART. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may 
consume.
  Mr. Speaker, there is this slight imbalance in time, but I just point 
out the curiosity that our friends on the other side of the aisle now 
want to bring up, talking about something unrelated, the supplemental 
bill, but under a closed rule, at the same time that they are 
criticizing the fact that one of the measures we bring up under this 
rule is not open while the other one is.
  Mr. Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time because of the 
imbalance at this time.
  Mr. HALL of Ohio. Mr. Speaker, I yield 6 minutes to the gentleman 
from Massachusetts [Mr. Moakley].
  Mr. MOAKLEY. Mr. Speaker, I am very proud to be a member of the 
Committee on Rules. The Committee on Rules really is one of the few 
committees where we disagree without really being disagreeable. My good 
friend, the gentleman from New York [Mr. Solomon] and I have worked 
together. We are personally friendly. We can disagree very much on the 
issues, and this is one of those times.
  But, Mr. Speaker, what happened in the Committee on Rules last night 
makes me wonder if our Republican colleagues are really interested in 
bipartisanship, because last night, Mr. Speaker, the Committee on Rules 
took a perfectly good bipartisan foreign authorization bill and threw 
it in the trash can, and in its place they gave us a closed rule for 
NATO expansion and an open rule for State Department authorization. So 
what once was a bill that had both Republican and Democratic support, 
not to mention the support of our President, has been chopped up and 
changed so that it no longer resembles the bill which we began last 
night.
  Mr. Speaker, foreign aid is out, NATO expansion is closed, and hardly 
anything will be germane to the State Department authorization.
  But the gentleman from New York [Mr. Solomon], the chairman, says 
nothing is really changed.
  Now that reminds me of the story of the tourist who went up to Mount 
Vernon and was looking around when a tour guide came up to him and 
showed him an ax and said, ``This is the ax that George Washington used 
to chop down the cherry tree.''
  The tourist very excitedly, so close to history said, ``Really, is 
this the real ax that chopped down the cherry tree?''
  Tour guide said, ``Absolutely.'' He said, ``Well, we replaced the 
handle three, and the head two times, but this is the original ax.''
  Mr. Speaker, that was not the same ax, and this is not the same bill. 
It is not even close.
  So if my colleagues think the process on this bill is bad, what is 
happening on the supplemental budget is worse.
  Seventy-four days ago President Clinton sent disaster relief 
legislation to this Congress. But despite the passage of over 2 months' 
time and despite the vote 2 weeks ago not to adjourn until the flood 
victims got their relief, despite the Red River's rising 25 feet above 
flood stage, despite the fires, despite the devastation, despite the 
loss of homes, the loss of businesses and irreplaceable personal 
property, my Republican colleagues refuse to do anything about it.
  My Republican colleagues sent the House of Representatives on 
Memorial Day vacation while the people in North Dakota are still 
ringing out their clothes, struggling with these incredible losses. And 
it is not just North Dakota that will suffer. Mr. Speaker, the 
supplemental contains disaster relief for people in 33 other States.
  So what are my Republican colleagues giving us today? Today, we are 
looking at a rewritten State Department bill. It is one week after the 
recess. Mr. Speaker, where is the supplemental? The flood victims are 
not the only people affected by the failure to pass the supplemental. 
Mr. Speaker, 360,000 small children and pregnant women will be cut from 
the WIC Program unless we pass emergency funds to keep that program 
going. And as we speak, our troops in Bosnia are running out of 
training money. In fact, they may have to cancel training altogether.
  Now I know my colleague from New York, Mr. Solomon, agrees with me 
very strongly that our troops need to be ready, especially in the 
field, so I invite him to get some of his colleagues and vote with us 
to oppose the previous question, and, Mr. Speaker, any Member who 
believes that the North Dakotans have suffered enough, any Member who 
believes the American troops in the field should be as ready as they 
possibly can, any Member who believes that politics is a lot less 
important than food for pregnant women, small children, should join me 
in opposing the previous question. If the previous question is 
defeated, my Republican colleagues will have to stop playing games with 
peoples' lives and livelihood and the welfare of the American troops.
  Mr. Speaker, early on the gentleman from New York [Mr. Solomon] said 
the Democrats did the exact same thing back in 1993. Not so. And I am 
reading from the statements of the House of Representatives, June 15, 
1993. The gentleman from California [Mr. Dreier] who handled the bill 
is speaking.

       Mr. Speaker, I want to commend Chairman Moakley of the 
     Rules Committee as well as Foreign Affairs Committee Chairman 
     Charles Lee Hamilton and the ranking minority, Mr. Gilman, 
     for agreeing to this unusual procedure. I want to especially 
     commend the gentlewoman from Maine, Mrs. Snowe, the ranking 
     minority member on the Subcommittee on International 
     Operations for insisting on the separate consideration for 
     these two measures.

                              {time}  1315

  So Senator Snowe is the one that insisted on this. This was not from 
the

[[Page H3286]]

Democrats. We were conceding. We were accommodating the Republican 
Members on this thing.
  Also, following the statements of the gentleman from California [Mr. 
Dreier], he is saying that he wants to ``especially commend the 
chairman of the Committee on Foreign Affairs, the gentleman from 
Indiana [Mr. Hamilton], for taking the lead and insisting that we forge 
a fair and bipartisan structured rule. This is the second time this 
year this has been done by Chairman Hamilton, and it speaks volumes 
about the character of the man.''
  ``This rule was negotiated on a good-faith,'' still quoting the 
gentleman from California [Mr. Dreier], ``basis between the majority 
and the minority in the Foreign Affairs Committee.''
  ``Mr. Speaker, I am especially pleased that the rule adopted 
yesterday, as well as this rule, makes it possible to consider the 
State Department and the foreign aid issues as two separate bills, even 
though they were originally reported from the Committee on Foreign 
Affairs as one bill. This is something our Republican leader felt very 
strongly about, as did I, and so did the gentlewoman from Maine [Ms. 
Snowe].''
  ``So again, I want to thank Chairman Hamilton and I want to thank 
Chairman Moakley and the other Members on the Committee on Rules for 
agreeing to this request.''
  Now, a statement of Mr. Solomon. I now am quoting the gentleman from 
New York [Mr. Solomon], chairman of the Committee on Rules, my dear 
friend:
  ``I think it is evident from the provisions of this rule and the 
process that produced it, that this is a very fair and bipartisan rule, 
something that is a rarity when it comes to most restrictive rules in 
the House. I hope that other committees would follow this rule.''
  So, Mr. Speaker, I just wanted to show that it is not the same bill 
as in 1993. In 1993 we acquiesced. We did what they wanted us to do. 
This was done because Bob Michel wanted it, because Olympia Snowe 
wanted it.
  Today, we do not want this thing. This should never have happened. 
This is not democratic. I hope that my colleagues vote to defeat the 
previous question.
  Mr. DIAZ-BALART. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may 
consume to say that it is truly disappointing that our friends on the 
other side of the aisle would put into question our commitment to the 
supplemental appropriations bill and the needs of the victims, when we 
are working as intensely as possible and will produce legislation as 
soon as possible.
  Mr. Speaker, I yield 30 seconds to the gentleman from California [Mr. 
Dreier], my distinguished colleague on the Committee on Rules.
  Mr. DREIER. Mr. Speaker, I thank my friend from California for his 
leadership and being so generous since I regularly say nice things 
about both Republicans and Democrats, and obviously I was very kind 
when I had the thrill to manage that rule, as the gentleman from 
Massachusetts [Mr. Moakley] has pointed out.
  Unfortunately, my dear friend from South Boston did not read further 
to find that there was in fact a second rule which in fact was very 
structured, limited the opportunity to provide amendments, and 
virtually everyone on this side of the aisle opposed that amendment. So 
I am very generous when they are open rules and when we have a very 
agreeable procedure, but when we were not treated fairly, obviously, it 
was not the same situation as we have today.
  Mr. HALL of Ohio. Mr. Speaker, I yield 4 minutes to the gentleman 
from Michigan [Mr. Bonior], the minority whip.
  Mr. BONIOR. Mr. Speaker, when the worst floods in 500 years swept 
through the Northern Plains 2 months ago, thousands of families stood 
their ground. They filled their sandbags around the clock, they did it 
in a brave, furious and ultimately a futile attempt to save their homes 
and their schools and their farms and their businesses.
  This was a natural disaster of historic proportions. Neighborhoods 
were evacuated, city blocks went up in flames, entire towns were under 
water, people were forced to flee to higher ground, and they called out 
for help, to their neighbors, to their friends, to their Government.
  And how has Congress answered them? It has done nothing. That was 
nearly 2 weeks ago, and they still are playing games. Why? Because the 
Republican leadership wants to saddle any disaster relief legislation 
with provisions completely unrelated to helping the victims of 
disaster, provisions that further their own political agenda, 
provisions, by the way, which would slash student aid, would deny 
veterans medical care, would devastate our national parks.
  Now, the President has said he will veto any disaster relief bill 
that includes these extraneous killer provisions, and he is right. 
Congress should send him a clean bill that deals with disaster relief 
for the families in the 33 States that are running out of time and 
running out of patience and running out of hope.
  What kind of leadership is it when politicians put their own personal 
agendas before the needs of flood victims? Have they forgotten that 
emergencies demand a rapid response, that emergencies require us to set 
aside our partisan differences? Now what if the Founding Fathers had 
sent Paul Revere on his midnight run but asked him to drag along an 
iron bathtub, pick up a kitchen sink on his way to Lexington?
  Saddling this disaster relief bill with major extraneous bells and 
whistles turns it into a legislative pack horse that will not make it 
out of the starting gate.
  Why cannot the Republican leadership send the President a clean 
disaster relief bill that deals with that, disaster relief? It is time 
for the Republicans to quit holding flood victims hostage.
  I urge my colleagues to defeat the previous question. This vote will 
be on whether or not we want to help those people who are suffering. 
Make no mistake about it, the previous question vote is the important 
vote on this provision. I urge my colleagues to defeat the previous 
question and send a clean disaster relief bill to the President today.
  Mr. DIAZ-BALART. Mr. Speaker, I yield 3 minutes to my distinguished 
colleague and friend from Florida [Ms. Ros-Lehtinen] to continue the 
debate on the Foreign Relations Authorization Act and the European 
Security Act rule.
  Ms. ROS-LEHTINEN. Mr. Speaker, I thank my colleague from Florida, 
[Mr. Diaz-Balart], for yielding, and I thank the chairman of the 
Committee on Rules, the gentleman from New York, [Mr. Solomon], for 
giving me the time as well.
  I rise to render my strong support for the rule of the bill before 
us, and I thank my colleague from Florida for once again making sure 
that everyone understands what it is that it is in front of us. The 
bill that is in front of us is related to the foreign relations 
authorization bill, State Department, as well as the NATO expansion 
bill. We are fully committed to making sure that we pass the 
supplemental, the disaster relief funds, and that will come very soon, 
as soon as that legislation is ready.
  I thank my colleague for yielding me this time, because these bills 
before us today are certainly very important. They encompass a wide 
variety of legislative initiatives to increase the effectiveness of 
U.S. foreign policy. Under the leadership of our chairman, the 
gentleman from New York [Mr. Gilman], we made sure that we safeguarded 
U.S. national security priorities, that we cracked down on the Castro 
dictatorship, and that we protected the interests of American citizens.
  One provision of this bill which accomplishes all of these objectives 
is a measure I introduced which sets reporting requirements on the 
implementation of title IV of the Helms-Burton law, the Libertad Act. 
This provision helps ensure that Helms-Burton will be actively enforced 
as Congress always intended by requiring regular official notification 
on the denial of visas to persons doing business with Castro, using 
property illegally stolen from U.S. American citizens. It ensures that 
those who act in total disregard for the security and foreign policy 
concerns of our country by engaging with a terrorist regime near our 
borders are held accountable for their actions, and it reaffirms the 
spirit and the rule of law of the Libertad Act.

[[Page H3287]]

  It sends a clear message to those countries which place a greater 
value on profits from business with the Castro regime than on helping 
to free the Cuban people from their oppression and subjugation. The 
message is clear: It says foreign companies can continue to exploit 
U.S. property in Cuba, that is certainly their right. However, in doing 
so, they must pay a price, and that price is that they can risk their 
access to our U.S. markets. We cannot sit back and allow for the 
continued violation of U.S. property rights of U.S. citizens without 
taking action.
  We must obey the law and Helms-Burton is the law. The administration 
must understand that Congress means business, that when we pass laws 
and when the President signs them, that we expect those laws to be 
implemented, fully implemented to their full extent. We must not 
jeopardize concrete tools for vague assurances from our trading 
partners. We must stand firm. No compromises should be allowed when 
American interests are at stake.
  I urge all of my colleagues to support this bill and the rule related 
to it.
  Mr. HALL of Ohio. Mr. Speaker, I yield 3 minutes to the gentleman 
from Indiana [Mr. Hamilton], the ranking minority member on the 
Committee on International Relations.
  Mr. HAMILTON. Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentleman for yielding me this 
time.
  Mr. Speaker, I strongly oppose this rule for one very simple reason: 
This is not the bill that was reported by the Committee on 
International Relations on May 9. We are considering today a bill not 
drafted by our committee, but it was a bill put together by the 
Committee on Rules.
  In my view, this rule is offensive to the Committee on International 
Relations. It disregards totally the committee's work product. It is an 
extraordinary exercise of power, if not an usurpation of power by the 
Committee on Rules. It offends the orderly process of the House. It 
makes the authorization committee in this instance virtually irrelevant 
to the legislative process.
  We all know that the Committee on Rules has a tough job, and if it 
does its job well, and it often does, the House works its will in a 
fair and democratic manner. What the Committee on Rules ought not to do 
is rewrite the bill. It ought not to ignore the committee product. It 
ought not to put on the floor of this House a bill never considered by 
the committee, yet that is exactly what has happened in this instance.
  It has taken a bill reported out by the committee, stripped out the 
most important division authorizing foreign assistance. It has taken an 
80-page reorganization amendment, which was filed before the Committee 
on Rules but never considered by the Committee on International 
Relations, and made it a part of the text of this bill.
  As part of the rule, it has made in order the European Security Act, 
a bill that was never considered by the Committee on International 
Relations, upon which we have had no hearings in this Congress, which 
addresses the most important foreign policy issue of the next 12 
months, the enlargement of NATO.
  This process is an insult to the House Committee on International 
Relations. It is deeply offensive to anyone who cares about the orderly 
process of this institution. It torpedoes the committee, it sets aside 
the committee's expertise, and I object to it.
  We had coming out of the committee a bipartisan product. I commended 
the chairman of the committee for the manner in which he handled that 
bill and for producing a bipartisan bill. It was a fair process that 
went forward. It produced a bill that had a very good chance of being 
signed into law, and I think it is correct to say that it is virtually 
nil, the possibility that this bill, newly drafted by the Committee on 
Rules, will become law. We are simply marking time.
  If we adopt this rule, we will have taken a fair and an open process 
and replaced it with a process that is deeply flawed. I urge a ``no'' 
vote on the previous question and a ``no'' vote on the rule.
  Mr. DIAZ-BALART. Mr. Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from 
Florida [Mr. Goss], my distinguished colleague on the Committee on 
Rules.
  (Mr. GOSS asked and was given permission to revise and extend his 
remarks.)
  Mr. GOSS. Mr. Speaker, I thank my colleague from Florida [Mr. Diaz-
Balart] for the time.
  I rise in support of this open rule providing for consideration of 
the Foreign Relations Authorization Act. I also strongly support the 
second bill brought up by the rule, the European Security Act, which 
will be combined with the State Department bill at the conclusion of 
the consideration of the two measures. These are not new items, these 
are things that have been much discussed in these Halls.

                              {time}  1330

  It has been 12 long years since the last international relations 
authorization legislation was signed into law. Think about that. What 
this means is that review and reform of the mechanisms used when the 
Government conducts its foreign policy and spends American taxpayers' 
dollars overseas are long, long overdue.
  As many of my colleagues know from their own mail, this is something 
of a sore spot for many Americans who question the effectiveness of our 
foreign efforts and our foreign policy.
  This is especially apparent when they look at the general lack of 
progress the White House has been making even in nearby countries like 
Haiti--where $3 billion and 20,000 troops have made little tangible 
difference to most Haitians--and have perhaps moved that country 
backwards by increasing dependency on American handouts. Or countries 
like Bosnia, where the administration has apparently made a commitment 
it cannot seem to extract itself--or our troops--from.
  I understand the benefits of reasonable levels of well-managed and 
monitored foreign aid. These are benefits that are not measured by 
volumes of carefully staged photo ops. We need to streamline our 
foreign policy assets to reflect current priorities and the reality of 
our limited resources, to get more bang for the relatively few dollars 
we spend to protect and promote our interests abroad.
  This legislation will in fact do that, doing away with three 
agencies, folding their nonduplicative functions into State, along with 
some functions of a fourth agency--USAID. It also addresses shifting 
American priorities. I am especially pleased that it places a priority 
on cracking down on Fidel Castro's regime and chokes off international 
assistance that could be used by Castro to complete the nuclear 
reactors at Juragua--an issue of grave concern to my southwest Florida 
district. Ultimately, H.R. 1757 should go a long way toward creating a 
leaner, more effective foreign policy apparatus--and one that reflects 
our changing priorities as we move ahead into the new millennium. H.R. 
1757 should also give us concrete progress toward achieving the goal of 
eliminating fraud, waste, and abuse.

  The second related bill this rule brings before us is H.R. 1758, the 
European Security Act, in conjunction with H.R. 1757. This legislation 
was introduced by the gentleman from New York [Mr. Gilman] and several 
of my colleagues to consolidate the gains made by the United States and 
our European allies in freeing Europe from the grip of the cold war.
  As an original cosponsor of this legislation, I am pleased to be able 
to say this act will take us beyond the first tranche of NATO 
expansion, bringing the security umbrella to those emerging democracies 
of Central and Eastern Europe that are striving to meet the 
requirements for membership.
  I think anyone who is watching this issue closely knows that the 
White House's most recent foray in this policy area makes it more 
important than ever that the Congress weighs in--this legislation is 
the right message and it is being sent at the right time.
  This is essentially an open rule. It does deserve support. H.R. 1757 
should improve the way we do business overseas, and H.R. 1758 is 
eagerly anticipated and anxiously awaited by our friends, old and new, 
throughout Europe. A vote ``yes'' for this bill makes sense. A vote 
``yes'' for this rule gets us to that point.
  Mr. HALL of Ohio. Mr. Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman 
from Massachusetts [Mr. Frank].
  Mr. FRANK of Massachusetts. Mr. Speaker, the majority is perpetuating 
as egregious a violation of the rules that ought to govern a democracy 
as I have ever seen. This outrage of telling us that we will have 1 
hour with no amendments to debate the fundamental question of NATO 
policy is a disrespect for the rules that ought to govern beyond what I 
have ever seen.

[[Page H3288]]

  I hope the gentleman from New York will be prepared to amend his 
earlier statement when he said, well, if it had come up as an amendment 
it would also not have been amendable. That is, of course, not remotely 
true. If the European Security Act had been offered as an amendment to 
the bill, a 17-page amendment, it would have been amendable. It would 
have been debatable without limit. It would have been subject to a 
motion for substitution.
  The question of policy regarding NATO is of extraordinary importance. 
The gentleman from New York said, well, we have to provide some money 
for these Eastern European countries. Vote for this bill and we are 
committing billions of dollars from the American taxpayer to our 
European new allies. The whole question of burdensharing, the question 
of whether or not Americans ought to continue to subsidize Europe 
militarily in the absence of a military threat, we are being asked to 
vote on this with no amendments and only a half hour on either side.
  It is absolutely unprecedented in my experience for a matter as 
central as the NATO policy, what kind of policy, nuclear policy, 
conventional arms policy, which countries join, that that is to be a 
closed rule, 1 hour, one bill, on this NATO question.
  I understand the majority is somewhat at odds right now. There is an 
incoherence in their strategy. They are trying to fill time. But to 
take one of the central questions facing the world today, whether and 
on what terms we should expand NATO, how much the American taxpayer 
should contribute, what should be the rules and which nations should 
come in, and to do it unamendably, to bring that forward without an 
amendment, is, as I say, as great a disrespect for democratic process 
as I have ever seen. The majority ought to be ashamed of itself.
  Mr. DIAZ-BALART. Mr. Speaker, I yield such time as he may consume to 
the gentleman from New York [Mr. Solomon], chairman of the Committee on 
Rules.
  Mr. SOLOMON. Mr. Speaker, I am again just surprised. When the NATO 
Participation Act passed this floor, as I recall, there were only 7 
votes against it. I would predict that is what happens here again 
today, because this Congress, both Republican and Democrats alike, 
believe that we should be giving the people that were oppressed by this 
international, deadly, atheistic, communism for 50 years, they ought to 
have the opportunity of freedom, the same as we Americans desire. That 
is why we fought a World War, and a Second World War. That is why the 
American taxpayer footed the bill for a cold war that was extremely 
expensive. It is why Ronald Reagan called the Soviet empire the evil 
empire.
  The truth of the matter is that we are going to give those people 
that right. We are going to enter into a treaty alliance that will say 
to them, if your sovereign boundaries are threatened then we, the 
United States of America, will help you defend those sovereign 
boundaries. That is what this debate is all about.
  I think the gentleman may be sticking up for Senator Kennedy, who 
opposes the expansion of NATO, and we are not going to give him the 
chance to block this legislation. We are going to include it in this 
legislation, and force a vote on it over in the other body.
  Mr. HALL of Ohio. Mr. Speaker, I yield 10 seconds to the gentleman 
from Massachusetts [Mr. Frank].
  Mr. FRANK of Massachusetts. Mr. Speaker, the gentleman tried to evade 
the point. The question is not whether we should debate it, but whether 
we should debate it in a closed rule with no amendments.
  I am all for democracy in Eastern Europe. I am sorry the gentleman is 
not in favor of democracy here in the House of Representatives.
  Mr. HALL of Ohio. Mr. Speaker, I yield 1 minute and 10 seconds to the 
gentleman from New York [Mr. Nadler].
  (Mr. NADLER asked and was given permission to revise and extend his 
remarks.)
  Mr. NADLER. Mr. Speaker, without any public discussion, a provision 
was inserted in this brew last night that would fundamentally alter 
American policy by repealing the Lautenberg amendment that has made it 
practical for Jews and Evangelical Christians emigrating from the 
former Soviet Union to receive refugee status in the United States.
  The Lautenberg amendment recognizes a simple and straightforward 
fact: that there is still a great deal of religious persecution in the 
former Soviet Union; that anti-Semitism and religious persecution did 
not die with the Communist government; and that, if anything, with 
virulent nationalists and anti-Semites like Vladimir Zhirinovsky active 
and increasingly popular, the need to provide a safe haven is as great 
as ever.
  Finally, even if some in this House are prepared to believe that the 
Lautenberg amendment is no longer needed, the Jews of the former Soviet 
Union are not. They are still trying to get out. There are about 40,000 
applications on file and the Department of State estimates that two-
thirds of them qualify; 2,000 new applications are received every 
month.
  The Congressional Budget Office, after five contrary determinations, 
now says there is a cost to continuing the Lautenberg amendment. This 
is nonsense. We set a cap on refugee admissions every year. The 
Lautenberg amendment does not add a single number to that cap. It 
simply determines refugee admissions within the cap. So it is absurd to 
suggest there is any cost involved in this amendment.
  Mr. Speaker, the rule also drops the entire foreign aid budget from 
the International Relation Committee's bill. This includes aid to 
Israel. How can we vote to cut aid to Israel from this bill? The 
Israeli people are living under the gun. They have to face terrorism on 
their busses, on their streets, and in their schools. Israel is our 
only democratic ally in the region.
  What sort of message does this send to Israel's many enemies? That 
the United States lacks the resolve to stand with our friends? That 
terrorism wins?
  Mr. Speaker, this rule is a disgrace. It undercuts our basic values 
and our policies that have worked for our friends, our country, and our 
values.
  Mr. Speaker, I also object to the inability to stage a real debate on 
NATO expansion, on where we should extend our guarantees and where not. 
If Hungary, why not Russia? Why not Ukraine? This House ought to debate 
that, and this rule ought to be defeated.
  Mr. DIAZ-BALART. Mr. Speaker, I yield 3 minutes to the gentleman from 
California [Mr. Dreier], a distinguished member of the Committee on 
Rules.
  (Mr. DREIER asked and was given permission to revise and extend his 
remarks.)
  Mr. DREIER. Mr. Speaker, obviously this debate has touched many 
different issues, because this is far-reaching legislation.
  I would like to talk about an issue that was raised by the gentleman 
from New York [Mr. Gilman] which has played a role in leading me to 
strongly support both this rule and the legislation.
  Earlier this year the American people were outraged when we saw a 16-
year-old girl run over on the streets right here in Washington, D.C., 
up at Dupont Circle. The real tragedy came when we found that the 
driver turned out to be a drunken diplomat from the Republic of 
Georgia. Then we, of course, looked at what conceivably could have 
happened. Of course, what could have happened is diplomatic immunity 
could have been used, and the driver would have no responsibility 
whatsoever for killing this young 16-year-old-girl.
  The immediate gut reaction from me and most people looking at this is 
why do we have diplomatic immunity? Obviously, diplomatic immunity is 
very important because it is conceivable that in another country we 
could see a U.S. officer in fact framed and charged with some crime 
that they are not responsible for at all, so diplomatic immunity is 
very important. But modifying the diplomatic immunity laws as they 
exist is very important.
  This provision includes some very important items which we brought 
about in a consensus which includes, as Chairman Gilman pointed out, 
now the support of Mothers Against Drunk Driving and several other 
organizations that heretofore have not gotten involved in legislation 
like this.
  What we call for is, first, a full accounting of the use of 
diplomatic immunity in the United States and in other countries, and, 
second and very

[[Page H3289]]

important, we call on the administration to proceed with negotiations 
to deal with a procedure that would allow the countries of origin to in 
fact have jurisdiction over the actions of one of their foreign service 
officers in another country.
  It is a very important step in dealing with a critically important 
problem, and that is why I think it is important for us to move ahead 
with this rule, get this legislation forward. So many people have said 
the legislation is going nowhere, but I think that dealing with this 
problem of diplomatic immunity and the potential loss of life and 
looking at the other victims means that we should in fact move ahead 
with it.
  I support this rule, Mr. Speaker, and support the underlying 
legislation, and hope that we will be able to proceed as expeditiously 
as possible in approving the previous question as well as the rule.
  Mr. HALL of Ohio. Mr. Speaker, I yield 1 minute to the gentleman from 
Minnesota [Mr. Minge].
  Mr. MINGE. Mr. Speaker, I represent an area of Minnesota that was 
affected by the flooding this spring. I know that the Republicans and 
the Democrats alike have recognized the importance of having an 
effective disaster assistance package for those parts of this Nation, 
not just the Midwest but the entire Nation, that have suffered from 
disasters. This is not a partisan issue.
  But what I find terribly ironic is that instead of completing the 
disaster assistance package for those fellow Americans who have 
suffered, we are turning to a foreign aid package, essentially, for 
folks in other countries.
  This is not to say that we should not fulfill our responsibilities 
globally. But the problem is, when are we going to take up and address 
the needs of Americans? Will we do it without placing on that 
legislation enormously controversial matters, hijacking our domestic 
disaster assistance bill for yet other political agendas?
  I would implore the leadership in this institution to immediately 
bring the disaster bill to this floor for a vote.
  Mr. DIAZ-BALART. Mr. Speaker, I yield such time as he may consume to 
the gentleman from New York [Mr. Gilman], chairman of the Committee on 
International Relations.
  Mr. GILMAN. Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentleman for yielding time to 
me.
  Mr. Speaker, let us all be clear. There is nothing, nothing save the 
reorganization provision that has been added to this bill. This bill 
has been before all of us for several weeks. The only change that has 
been made is we divided it into two parts. We do fund the State 
Department and related organizations, and we did add the European 
Security Act. There have been no changes in the underlying bill.
  To get involved now in a debate on disaster, the Disaster Act; while 
that is an important measure, it is certainly not germane to the 
measure that we have before us. I am urging my colleagues, vote for the 
previous question and vote for the rule. It is an important rule. It is 
an important bill with relation to our foreign policy.
  Mr. HALL of Ohio. Mr. Speaker, I yield the balance of my time to the 
gentleman from North Dakota [Mr. Pomeroy].
  Mr. POMEROY. Mr. Speaker, it has been 13 days since Congress recessed 
without taking action on the urgently needed disaster bill. Now, in its 
first action since coming back into session, it takes up the foreign 
aid bill. It was wrong of Congress to recess without taking action on 
the disaster bill, and it is wrong for us to commit taxpayer resources 
to help the others before we have committed those resources to helping 
our own.

                              {time}  1345

  To the flood victims I represent, this feels like Congress is trying 
to literally shove our nose in the muck and the filth left by the 
rampaging Red River. This is what the scene is like in Grand Forks, ND, 
today. Lives left on the lawn. Everything that river touched that river 
wrecked. We have hundreds of homes destroyed, hundreds more severely 
damaged and thousands of people not knowing where they are going to 
live, families separated now for 6 weeks, not knowing when they can get 
back together.
  We have to take action on the disaster bill. It is not acceptable in 
any way, shape, or form to pass foreign aid before we take action on 
this bill.
  Let us today vote down the rule, vote down the previous question 
motion that will be before us, and attach to this rule in consideration 
of this legislation the disaster bill so that none of us have to go 
home and face constituents like I will have to or my colleagues might 
have to someday that ask, why can we help everyone else and not help 
our own?
  Mr. Speaker, it is time to help our own. They desperately need it. 
Defeat this rule and help our own.
  Mr. DIAZ-BALART. Mr. Speaker, I yield 30 seconds to the gentleman 
from New York [Mr. Gilman].
  Mr. GILMAN. Mr. Speaker, while the gentleman makes a very eloquent 
appeal with regard to disaster relief, we certainly want to support 
that relief. Let us get that conference committee moving.
  But this is not foreign aid. This measure before us is the State 
Department authorization measure and not foreign aid. I just wanted to 
clarify the Record for the gentleman.
  Mr. POMEROY. Mr. Speaker, to the families that have been apart for 6 
weeks and have no place to live, it looks like foreign aid to us.
  Mr. DIAZ-BALART. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may 
consume.
  I think it is a very important point of clarification, the one that 
the chairman of the Committee on International Relations has just made. 
This is not a foreign aid bill. Yet the two measures before us are very 
important, not only the Foreign Policy Authorization Act but the bill 
wanted by the President of the United States, by the way, Mr. Speaker, 
to authorize the expansion of NATO.
  It is a very serious matter before the Nation, one that relates 
directly to our foreign policy and to our national security.
  Mr. Speaker, I yield the balance of my time to the gentleman from New 
York [Mr. Solomon], distinguished chairman of the Committee on Rules.
  The SPEAKER pro tempore (Mr. Goodlatte]. The gentleman from New York 
[Mr. Solomon] is recognized for 2\1/4\ minutes.
  Mr. SOLOMON. Mr. Speaker, let me say to the gentleman from North 
Dakota [Mr. Pomeroy], I represented an area in New York State, the 
Adirondack Mountains, the Catskill Mountains, and the Hudson Valley.
  So many times during the winter and spring we are faced with 
disaster. We have ice jams that cause irreparable damage. We rarely get 
any aid from the Federal Government. We generally try to take care of 
ourselves up there. But I sympathize with the gentleman. I want to do 
everything I can to expedite this supplemental bill. That is not the 
issue before us, but I will say to the gentleman that it is possible 
for the Committee on Rules today to go upstairs and waive the two-
thirds rule so that should the conference continue into this evening 
and should they be able to file before midnight, we then would be able 
to hold a rules meeting tomorrow and bring that supplemental to the 
floor on the same day. We cannot do that under normal rules of the 
House.
  I would just say to my good friend, the gentleman from Massachusetts 
[Mr. Moakley], that he and I might get together a little bit later. We 
might consider that in trying to help those people in North Dakota and 
other areas.
  In the meantime, Mr. Speaker, let me tell my colleagues that this is 
a good bill. The fact is, if we pass this rule, we are going to go to 
an open debate process, any Member who filed amendments on the State 
Department authorization portion of the bill will have the opportunity, 
including those that did not take the time to file those amendments.
  So let us get on with it. Let us pass the previous question. Let us 
pass the rule and then let us get onto this bill.
  Ms. CHRISTIAN-GREEN. Mr. Speaker, the heart of all of the people of 
the U.S. Virgin Islands go out to our fellow Americans in the Midwest.
  We, who have experienced some of the worse hurricane related 
disasters in recent years, know your pain.
  That is why I rise today, to plead with my Republican colleagues, not 
to use your distress as a political football, not to make you pawns in 
the budget and census debate.
  It is callous to say that there is no emergency. We have only been 
able to address the

[[Page H3290]]

immediate emergency response. Now we must provide the funding needed to 
help the people of North Dakota and South Dakota and other States to 
begin to recover--to rebuild their homes, to restart their businesses, 
to restore their farms, to begin to rebuild their lives.
  This Congress cannot abandon our people in their time of great and 
dire need. We need a clean bill, and we need to vote to cast this 
lifeline to the flood victims now.
  Ms. DeLAURO. Mr. Speaker, I urge my colleagues to defeat the previous 
questions so that Congress can provide the help so needed by Americans 
plagued by flooding and other disasters.
  Congress should have approved the disaster assistance before leaving 
for a Memorial Day break. The bill would have provided approximately 
$5.6 billion in disaster assistance for victims in 33 States. It also 
would have provided funds to support our troops in Bosnia and those 
enforcing the no-fly zone in Iraq. Instead, the Republican leadership 
loaded down the disaster bill with controversial provisions and then 
went home without doing their job to help Americans in need.
  We had the chance before Memorial Day to pass a simple, clean bill, 
but the Republican leadership chose to make political points rather 
than help those in need. Now we are back, but instead of passing a 
clean disaster assistance bill, we are taking up the State Department 
authorization bill.
  I certainly support our Nation's foreign policy efforts, but I 
believe we ought to take care of our own people first. Let's defeat the 
previous question so that we can quickly pass a noncontroversial 
disaster assistance bill.
  Mr. DIAZ-BALART. Mr. Speaker, I move the previous question on the 
resolution.
  The SPEAKER pro tempore. 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. HALL of Ohio. 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.
  The vote was taken by electronic device, and there were--yeas 219, 
nays 204, not voting 11, as follows:

                             [Roll No. 157]

                               YEAS--219

     Aderholt
     Archer
     Armey
     Bachus
     Baker
     Ballenger
     Barr
     Barrett (NE)
     Bartlett
     Barton
     Bass
     Bateman
     Bereuter
     Bilbray
     Bilirakis
     Bliley
     Blunt
     Boehlert
     Boehner
     Bonilla
     Bono
     Brady
     Bryant
     Bunning
     Burr
     Burton
     Buyer
     Callahan
     Calvert
     Camp
     Campbell
     Canady
     Cannon
     Castle
     Chabot
     Chambliss
     Chenoweth
     Christensen
     Coble
     Coburn
     Collins
     Combest
     Cook
     Cooksey
     Cox
     Crane
     Crapo
     Cubin
     Cunningham
     Davis (VA)
     Deal
     DeLay
     Diaz-Balart
     Dickey
     Doolittle
     Dreier
     Duncan
     Dunn
     Ehlers
     Ehrlich
     Emerson
     English
     Ensign
     Everett
     Ewing
     Fawell
     Foley
     Forbes
     Fowler
     Fox
     Franks (NJ)
     Frelinghuysen
     Gallegly
     Ganske
     Gekas
     Gibbons
     Gilchrest
     Gillmor
     Gilman
     Goodlatte
     Goodling
     Goss
     Graham
     Granger
     Greenwood
     Hansen
     Hastert
     Hastings (WA)
     Hayworth
     Hefley
     Herger
     Hill
     Hilleary
     Hobson
     Hoekstra
     Horn
     Hostettler
     Houghton
     Hulshof
     Hunter
     Hutchinson
     Hyde
     Inglis
     Istook
     Jenkins
     Johnson (CT)
     Johnson, Sam
     Jones
     Kasich
     Kelly
     Kim
     King (NY)
     Kingston
     Klug
     Knollenberg
     Kolbe
     LaHood
     Largent
     Latham
     LaTourette
     Lazio
     Lewis (KY)
     Linder
     Livingston
     LoBiondo
     Lucas
     Manzullo
     McCollum
     McCrery
     McHugh
     McInnis
     McIntosh
     McKeon
     Metcalf
     Mica
     Miller (FL)
     Molinari
     Moran (KS)
     Morella
     Myrick
     Nethercutt
     Neumann
     Ney
     Northup
     Norwood
     Nussle
     Oxley
     Packard
     Pappas
     Parker
     Paul
     Paxon
     Pease
     Peterson (PA)
     Petri
     Pitts
     Pombo
     Porter
     Portman
     Pryce (OH)
     Quinn
     Radanovich
     Redmond
     Regula
     Riggs
     Riley
     Rogan
     Rogers
     Rohrabacher
     Ros-Lehtinen
     Roukema
     Royce
     Ryun
     Salmon
     Sanford
     Saxton
     Scarborough
     Schaefer, Dan
     Schaffer, Bob
     Sensenbrenner
     Sessions
     Shadegg
     Shaw
     Shays
     Shimkus
     Shuster
     Skeen
     Smith (MI)
     Smith (NJ)
     Smith (OR)
     Smith (TX)
     Smith, Linda
     Snowbarger
     Solomon
     Souder
     Spence
     Stearns
     Stump
     Sununu
     Talent
     Tauzin
     Taylor (NC)
     Thomas
     Thornberry
     Tiahrt
     Upton
     Walsh
     Wamp
     Watkins
     Watts (OK)
     Weldon (FL)
     Weldon (PA)
     Weller
     White
     Whitfield
     Wicker
     Wolf
     Young (AK)
     Young (FL)

                               NAYS--204

     Abercrombie
     Ackerman
     Allen
     Baesler
     Baldacci
     Barcia
     Barrett (WI)
     Becerra
     Bentsen
     Berman
     Berry
     Bishop
     Blagojevich
     Blumenauer
     Bonior
     Borski
     Boswell
     Boucher
     Boyd
     Brown (CA)
     Brown (FL)
     Brown (OH)
     Capps
     Cardin
     Carson
     Clay
     Clement
     Clyburn
     Condit
     Conyers
     Costello
     Coyne
     Cramer
     Cummings
     Danner
     Davis (FL)
     Davis (IL)
     DeFazio
     DeGette
     Delahunt
     DeLauro
     Dellums
     Deutsch
     Dicks
     Dingell
     Dixon
     Doggett
     Dooley
     Doyle
     Edwards
     Engel
     Eshoo
     Etheridge
     Evans
     Fattah
     Fazio
     Filner
     Flake
     Foglietta
     Ford
     Frank (MA)
     Frost
     Furse
     Gejdenson
     Gephardt
     Gonzalez
     Goode
     Gordon
     Green
     Gutierrez
     Gutknecht
     Hall (OH)
     Hall (TX)
     Hamilton
     Harman
     Hastings (FL)
     Hinchey
     Hinojosa
     Holden
     Hooley
     Hoyer
     Jackson (IL)
     Jackson-Lee (TX)
     John
     Johnson (WI)
     Johnson, E.B.
     Kanjorski
     Kaptur
     Kennedy (MA)
     Kennedy (RI)
     Kennelly
     Kildee
     Kilpatrick
     Kind (WI)
     Kleczka
     Klink
     Kucinich
     LaFalce
     Lampson
     Leach
     Levin
     Lewis (GA)
     Lipinski
     Lofgren
     Lowey
     Luther
     Maloney (CT)
     Maloney (NY)
     Manton
     Markey
     Martinez
     Mascara
     Matsui
     McCarthy (MO)
     McCarthy (NY)
     McDermott
     McGovern
     McHale
     McIntyre
     McKinney
     McNulty
     Meehan
     Meek
     Menendez
     Millender-McDonald
     Miller (CA)
     Minge
     Mink
     Moakley
     Mollohan
     Moran (VA)
     Murtha
     Nadler
     Neal
     Oberstar
     Obey
     Olver
     Ortiz
     Owens
     Pallone
     Pascrell
     Pastor
     Payne
     Pelosi
     Peterson (MN)
     Pickett
     Pomeroy
     Poshard
     Price (NC)
     Rahall
     Ramstad
     Rangel
     Reyes
     Rivers
     Rodriguez
     Roemer
     Rothman
     Roybal-Allard
     Rush
     Sabo
     Sanchez
     Sanders
     Sandlin
     Sawyer
     Schumer
     Scott
     Serrano
     Sherman
     Sisisky
     Skaggs
     Skelton
     Slaughter
     Smith, Adam
     Snyder
     Spratt
     Stabenow
     Stark
     Stenholm
     Stokes
     Strickland
     Stupak
     Tanner
     Tauscher
     Taylor (MS)
     Thompson
     Thune
     Thurman
     Tierney
     Torres
     Towns
     Traficant
     Turner
     Velazquez
     Vento
     Visclosky
     Waters
     Watt (NC)
     Waxman
     Wexler
     Weygand
     Wise
     Woolsey
     Wynn
     Yates

                             NOT VOTING--11

     Andrews
     Clayton
     Farr
     Hefner
     Hilliard
     Jefferson
     Lantos
     Lewis (CA)
     McDade
     Pickering
     Schiff

                              {time}  1416

  Mr. KILDEE and Mr. GONZALEZ changed their vote from ``yea'' to 
``nay.''
  So the previous question was ordered.
  The result of the vote was announced as above recorded.
  The SPEAKER pro tempore (Mr. Goodlatte). The question is on the 
resolution.
  The question was taken; and the Speaker pro tempore announced that 
the ayes appeared to have it.
  Mr. HALL of Ohio. Mr. Speaker, on that I demand the yeas and nays.
  The yeas and nays were ordered.
  The vote was taken by electronic device, and there were--yeas 221, 
nays 200, not voting 13, as follows:

                             [Roll No. 158]

                               YEAS--221

     Aderholt
     Archer
     Armey
     Bachus
     Baker
     Ballenger
     Barr
     Barrett (NE)
     Bartlett
     Barton
     Bass
     Bateman
     Bereuter
     Bilbray
     Bilirakis
     Bliley
     Blunt
     Boehlert
     Boehner
     Bonilla
     Bono
     Boswell
     Brady
     Bryant
     Bunning
     Burr
     Burton
     Buyer
     Callahan
     Calvert
     Camp
     Campbell
     Canady
     Cannon
     Castle
     Chabot
     Chambliss
     Chenoweth
     Christensen
     Coble
     Coburn
     Collins
     Combest
     Cook
     Cooksey
     Cox
     Crane
     Crapo
     Cubin
     Cunningham
     Davis (VA)
     Deal
     DeLay
     Diaz-Balart
     Dickey
     Doolittle
     Dreier
     Duncan
     Ehlers
     Ehrlich
     Emerson
     English
     Ensign
     Everett
     Ewing
     Fawell
     Foley
     Forbes
     Fowler
     Fox
     Franks (NJ)
     Frelinghuysen
     Gallegly
     Ganske
     Gekas
     Gibbons
     Gilchrest
     Gillmor
     Gilman
     Goodlatte
     Goodling
     Goss
     Graham
     Granger
     Greenwood
     Hansen
     Hastert
     Hastings (WA)
     Hayworth
     Hefley
     Herger
     Hill
     Hilleary
     Hobson
     Hoekstra
     Horn
     Hostettler
     Houghton
     Hulshof
     Hunter
     Hutchinson
     Hyde
     Inglis
     Istook
     Jenkins
     Johnson (CT)
     Johnson, Sam
     Jones
     Kasich
     Kelly
     Kim
     King (NY)
     Kingston
     Klug
     Knollenberg
     Kolbe
     LaHood

[[Page H3291]]


     Largent
     Latham
     LaTourette
     Lazio
     Leach
     Lewis (KY)
     Linder
     Livingston
     LoBiondo
     Lucas
     Manzullo
     McCollum
     McCrery
     McHugh
     McInnis
     McIntosh
     McKeon
     Metcalf
     Mica
     Miller (FL)
     Molinari
     Moran (KS)
     Morella
     Myrick
     Nethercutt
     Neumann
     Ney
     Northup
     Norwood
     Nussle
     Oxley
     Packard
     Pappas
     Parker
     Paul
     Paxon
     Pease
     Peterson (PA)
     Petri
     Pitts
     Pombo
     Porter
     Portman
     Pryce (OH)
     Quinn
     Radanovich
     Ramstad
     Redmond
     Regula
     Riggs
     Riley
     Rogan
     Rogers
     Rohrabacher
     Ros-Lehtinen
     Roukema
     Royce
     Ryun
     Salmon
     Sanford
     Saxton
     Scarborough
     Schaefer, Dan
     Schaffer, Bob
     Sensenbrenner
     Sessions
     Shadegg
     Shaw
     Shays
     Shimkus
     Shuster
     Skeen
     Smith (MI)
     Smith (NJ)
     Smith (OR)
     Smith (TX)
     Smith, Linda
     Snowbarger
     Solomon
     Souder
     Spence
     Stearns
     Stump
     Sununu
     Talent
     Tauzin
     Taylor (NC)
     Thomas
     Thornberry
     Tiahrt
     Upton
     Walsh
     Wamp
     Watkins
     Watts (OK)
     Weldon (FL)
     Weldon (PA)
     Weller
     White
     Whitfield
     Wicker
     Wolf
     Young (AK)
     Young (FL)

                               NAYS--200

     Abercrombie
     Ackerman
     Allen
     Baesler
     Baldacci
     Barcia
     Barrett (WI)
     Becerra
     Bentsen
     Berman
     Berry
     Bishop
     Blagojevich
     Blumenauer
     Bonior
     Borski
     Boucher
     Boyd
     Brown (CA)
     Brown (FL)
     Brown (OH)
     Capps
     Cardin
     Carson
     Clay
     Clement
     Clyburn
     Condit
     Conyers
     Costello
     Coyne
     Cramer
     Cummings
     Danner
     Davis (FL)
     Davis (IL)
     DeFazio
     DeGette
     Delahunt
     DeLauro
     Dellums
     Deutsch
     Dicks
     Dingell
     Dixon
     Doggett
     Dooley
     Doyle
     Edwards
     Engel
     Eshoo
     Etheridge
     Evans
     Fattah
     Fazio
     Filner
     Flake
     Foglietta
     Ford
     Frank (MA)
     Frost
     Furse
     Gejdenson
     Gephardt
     Gonzalez
     Goode
     Gordon
     Green
     Gutierrez
     Gutknecht
     Hall (OH)
     Hall (TX)
     Hamilton
     Harman
     Hastings (FL)
     Hinchey
     Hinojosa
     Holden
     Hooley
     Hoyer
     Jackson (IL)
     Jackson-Lee (TX)
     John
     Johnson (WI)
     Johnson, E. B.
     Kanjorski
     Kaptur
     Kennedy (MA)
     Kennedy (RI)
     Kennelly
     Kildee
     Kilpatrick
     Kind (WI)
     Kleczka
     Klink
     Kucinich
     LaFalce
     Lampson
     Levin
     Lewis (GA)
     Lipinski
     Lofgren
     Lowey
     Luther
     Maloney (CT)
     Maloney (NY)
     Manton
     Markey
     Martinez
     Mascara
     Matsui
     McCarthy (MO)
     McCarthy (NY)
     McDermott
     McGovern
     McHale
     McIntyre
     McKinney
     McNulty
     Meehan
     Meek
     Menendez
     Millender-McDonald
     Miller (CA)
     Minge
     Mink
     Moakley
     Mollohan
     Moran (VA)
     Murtha
     Nadler
     Neal
     Oberstar
     Obey
     Olver
     Ortiz
     Owens
     Pallone
     Pascrell
     Pastor
     Payne
     Pelosi
     Peterson (MN)
     Pickett
     Pomeroy
     Poshard
     Price (NC)
     Rahall
     Rangel
     Reyes
     Rivers
     Rodriguez
     Roemer
     Rothman
     Roybal-Allard
     Rush
     Sabo
     Sanchez
     Sanders
     Sandlin
     Sawyer
     Schumer
     Scott
     Serrano
     Sherman
     Sisisky
     Skaggs
     Skelton
     Slaughter
     Smith, Adam
     Snyder
     Spratt
     Stabenow
     Stark
     Stenholm
     Stokes
     Strickland
     Stupak
     Tanner
     Tauscher
     Taylor (MS)
     Thompson
     Thune
     Thurman
     Tierney
     Torres
     Towns
     Traficant
     Turner
     Velazquez
     Vento
     Visclosky
     Waters
     Watt (NC)
     Waxman
     Wexler
     Weygand
     Wise
     Woolsey
     Wynn

                             NOT VOTING--13

     Andrews
     Clayton
     Dunn
     Farr
     Hefner
     Hilliard
     Jefferson
     Lantos
     Lewis (CA)
     McDade
     Pickering
     Schiff
     Yates

                              {time}  1437

  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.

                          ____________________