[Congressional Record Volume 143, Number 86 (Thursday, June 19, 1997)]
[House]
[Pages H3934-H3945]
From the Congressional Record Online through the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]




      PROVIDING FOR CONSIDERATION OF H.R. 1119, NATIONAL DEFENSE 
                 AUTHORIZATION ACT FOR FISCAL YEAR 1998

  Mr. SOLOMON. Mr. Speaker, by direction of the Committee on Rules, I 
call up House Resolution 169 and ask for its immediate consideration.
  The Clerk read the resolution, as follows:

                              H. Res. 169

       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. 1119) to authorize appropriations for fiscal 
     years 1998 and 1999 for military activities of the Department 
     of Defense, to prescribe military personnel strengths for 
     fiscal years 1998 and 1999, and for other purposes. The first 
     reading of the bill shall be dispensed with. All points of 
     order against consideration of the bill are waived. General 
     debate shall be confined to the bill and the amendments made 
     in order by this resolution and shall not exceed two hours 
     equally divided and controlled by the chairman and ranking 
     minority member of the Committee on National Security. After 
     general debate the bill shall be considered for amendment 
     under the five-minute rule.
       Sec. 2. (a) It shall be in order to consider as an original 
     bill for the purpose of amendment under the five-minute rule 
     the amendment in the nature of a substitute recommended by 
     the Committee on National Security now printed in the bill. 
     The committee amendment in the nature of a substitute shall 
     be considered as read. All points of order against the 
     committee amendment in the nature of a substitute are waived.
       (b) No amendment to the committee amendment in the nature 
     of a substitute shall be in order except the amendments 
     printed in the report of the Committee on Rules accompanying 
     this resolution and amendments en bloc described in section 3 
     of this resolution.
       (c) Except as specified in section 5 of this resolution, 
     each amendment printed in the report of the Committee on 
     Rules shall be considered only in the order printed in the 
     report, may be offered only by a Member designated in the 
     report, shall be considered as read, and shall not be subject 
     to a demand for division of the question in the House or in 
     the Committee of the Whole. Unless otherwise specified in the 
     report, each amendment printed in the report shall be 
     debatable for ten minutes equally divided and controlled by 
     the proponent and an opponent and shall not be subject to 
     amendment (except that the chairman and ranking minority 
     member of the Committee on National Security each may offer 
     one pro forma amendment for the purpose of further debate on 
     any pending amendment).

[[Page H3935]]

       (d) All points of order against amendments printed in the 
     report of the Committee on Rules and amendments en bloc 
     described in section 3 of this resolution are waived.
       (e) Consideration of the first two amendments in part 1 of 
     the report of the Committee on Rules shall begin with an 
     additional period of general debate, which shall be confined 
     to the subject of United States forces in Bosnia and shall 
     not exceed one hour equally divided and controlled by the 
     chairman and ranking minority member of the Committee on 
     National Security.
       Sec. 3. It shall be in order at any time for the chairman 
     of the Committee on National Security or his designee to 
     offer amendments en bloc consisting of amendments printed in 
     part 2 of the report of the Committee on Rules not earlier 
     disposed of or germane modifications of any such amendment. 
     Amendments en bloc offered pursuant to this section shall be 
     considered as read (except that modifications shall be 
     reported), shall be debatable for twenty minutes equally 
     divided and controlled by the chairman and ranking minority 
     member of the Committee on National Security or their 
     designees, shall not be subject to amendment, and shall not 
     be subject to a demand for division of the question in the 
     House or in the Committee of the Whole. For the purpose of 
     inclusion in such amendments en bloc, an amendment printed in 
     the form of a motion to strike may be modified to the form of 
     a germane perfecting amendment to the text originally 
     proposed to be stricken. The original proponent of an 
     amendment included in such amendments en bloc may insert a 
     statement in the Congressional record immediately before the 
     disposition of the amendment en bloc.
       Sec. 4. 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.
       Sec. 5. The Chairman of the Committee of the Whole may 
     recognize for consideration of any amendment printed in the 
     report of the Committee on Rules out of the order printed, 
     but not sooner than one hour after the chairman of the 
     Committee on National Security or a designee announces from 
     the floor a request to that effect.
       Sec. 6. At the conclusion of consideration of the bill for 
     amendment the Committee shall rise and report the bill to the 
     House with such amendments as may have been adopted. Any 
     Member may demand a separate vote in the House on any 
     amendment adopted in the Committee of the Whole to the bill 
     or to the committee amendment in the nature of a substitute. 
     The previous question shall be considered as ordered on the 
     bill and amendments thereto to final passage without 
     intervening motion except one motion to recommit with or 
     without instructions.
       Sec. 7. House Resolutions 161, 162, and 165 are laid on the 
     table.

                              {time}  1230

  The SPEAKER pro tempore (Mr. Calvert). The gentleman from New York 
[Mr. Solomon] is recognized for 1 hour.


            Request for Modification to House Resolution 169

  Mr. SOLOMON. Mr. Speaker, I ask unanimous consent that during the 
consideration of H.R. 1119, pursuant to House Resolution 169, it may be 
in order:
  To offer the amendment numbered 7 in part 1 of House Report 105-137 
in the modified form that I have placed at the desk, to debate it for 
90 minutes equally divided and controlled by the gentleman from 
California [Mr. Dellums] or his designee and an opponent, and otherwise 
to consider it as though printed in House Report 105-137;
  To offer the amendment numbered 15 in part 2 of House Report 105-137 
in the modified form that I have placed at the desk, and to debate it 
for 20 minutes equally divided and controlled by the gentleman from 
Massachusetts [Mr. Frank] or his designee and an opponent, and 
otherwise to consider it as though printed in House Report 105-137;
  To offer an amendment by the gentleman from Alabama [Mr. Everett] or 
his designee in the form that I have placed at the desk, and to debate 
it for 1 hour equally divided and controlled by the gentleman from 
Alabama [Mr. Everett] or his designee and an opponent, and otherwise to 
consider it as though printed in House Report 105-137;
  To offer an amendment offered by the gentleman from Pennsylvania [Mr. 
Weldon] or his designee in the form that I have placed at the desk, 
which shall be in order as though printed as amendment numbered 42 in 
part 2 of House Report 105-137;
  And to offer an amendment by the gentleman from Ohio [Mr. Traficant] 
or his designee in the form that I have placed at the desk, which shall 
be in order as though printed as amendment numbered 43 in part 2 of 
House Report 105-137;
  And, finally, the additional period of general debate on the subject 
of United States forces in Bosnia, described in section 2(e) of House 
Resolution 169, shall precede the offering of amendments numbered 8 and 
9 in part 1 of the report of the Committee on Rules rather than the 
amendments numbered 1 and 2 in that part.
  And, Mr. Speaker, I ask unanimous consent to dispense with the 
reading of the amendments.
  The SPEAKER pro tempore. Is there objection to the request of the 
gentleman from New York?
  Mr. RILEY. Mr. Speaker, I object.
  The SPEAKER pro tempore. Objection is heard.
  The gentleman from New York [Mr. Solomon] is recognized for 1 hour.
  Mr. SOLOMON. Mr. Speaker, for purposes of debate only, I yield 30 
minutes to the gentleman from Texas [Mr. Frost], pending which I yield 
myself such time as I may consume. During consideration of the 
resolution, all time yielded is for the purpose of debate only.
  Mr. Speaker, let me explain again what will happen here. The 
unanimous-consent request making these changes to the rule has been 
objected to, so at the end of this debate I would propound the 
unanimous-consent request again. If that is objected to, I would then 
move it and there would be a recorded vote taken at that time.
  Having said that, Mr. Speaker, this is the traditional structured 
rule that the Committee on Rules has provided in past years for defense 
authorization bills.
  First, this rule provides 2 hours of general debate. The committee 
amendment in the nature of a substitute is made in order as the 
original text.
  Next, the rule provides that no amendment will be in order except 
those in the report accompanying this rule. Each amendment will be 
debatable for the amount of time provided in the Committee on Rules 
report.
  The amendment will not be subject to amendment except as specified in 
the Committee on Rules report. However, the chairman and ranking 
minority member of the Committee on National Security may each offer 
one pro forma amendment for the purpose of further debate on any 
pending amendment.
  The rule provides that before the House considers the two amendments 
dealing with the subject of United States forces in Bosnia, there will 
be an extra hour and a half of general debate, if the unanimous-consent 
request goes through, controlled by the chairman and ranking minority 
member of the Committee on National Security.
  Next, the rule provides at any time the chairman of the Committee on 
National Security or his designee may offer en bloc amendments 
consisting of amendments printed in part 2 of the Committee on Rules 
report or germane modifications of those amendments.
  These en bloc packages of amendments will be debatable for 20 minutes 
and will not be subject to amendment. This rule provides authority for 
the chairman of the Committee of the Whole to roll votes in order to 
make more efficient use of Members' time. That means we can cluster 
votes to try to save the Members' time running back and forth.
  Amendments may be considered in an order different from that in the 
Committee on Rules report if the chairman of the Committee on National 
Security or his designee gives at least 1 hour's notice on the floor of 
the House.
  The rule also provides for a motion to recommit with or without 
instructions.
  The very last section of this rule, Mr. Speaker, provides for laying 
on the table three rules which were originally reported in order to 
provide for the consideration of supplemental appropriation bills. Then 
the rules became unnecessary when the supplemental appropriation bill 
was taken up by unanimous consent.
  Mr. Speaker, of the approximately 130-odd amendments submitted to the 
Committee on Rules, there have been 56 made in order by the rule. 
Nineteen of these, and now 20, are offered by Democrats and 29 are 
offered by Republicans and 5 have bipartisan sponsorship. This means 
that 40 percent of the

[[Page H3936]]

amendments submitted to the Committee on Rules are made in order by 
this rule. Given the time constraints for consideration of this bill on 
the floor, this rule represents a very fair balance between the 
majority and the minority.
  Mr. Speaker, on the bill itself, let me just again congratulate the 
gentleman from South Carolina [Mr. Spence], chairman of the Committee 
on National Security, for once again putting together an excellent 
piece of legislation under very difficult circumstances. And again let 
me commend the ranking minority member, the gentleman from California 
[Mr. Dellums], for his outstanding work. Again, this is a very 
controversial issue. We all come from different philosophical 
persuasions, but the gentleman from California has certainly done all 
he could do to cooperate in this matter.
  Mr. Speaker, it is absolutely imperative this bill contain adequate 
funding for our military personnel who are right now out in the field 
standing vigilant on behalf of all Americans, particularly in a place 
called Bosnia right now, and up in the border between North and South 
Korea.
  It is imperative that this bill contain enough quality of life 
incentives to retain and recruit the best people we can from all walks 
of life across this country.
  It is imperative that this bill contain enough funding for operations 
and maintenance so that our troops can be as highly trained as possible 
in case they are called into battle.
  It is imperative that this bill contain adequate funding for weapons 
procurement and research and development so that our troops can fight 
and defend themselves with only the very best equipment and technology 
available.
  Mr. Speaker, it is imperative that this bill set out policies which 
are consistent with and seek to maintain the unique warrior culture of 
the military, for without that, we cannot win wars, and that is what 
our military is there for, God forbid they ever be needed.
  Mr. Speaker, to the best extent possible, this bill, I think, does 
all of that. At $268 billion, the bill adds nearly $3 billion to 
President Clinton's wholly inadequate request. The bill adds $3.7 
billion to the President's request for procurement and $1.5 billion for 
research and development over and above the original request.
  These accounts contain adequate funding for the weapon systems of 
tomorrow, such as the F-22 stealth fighter, the B-2 bomber, the Marine 
Corps V-22 troop carrier, and the next generation of aircraft carriers 
and submarines which are so vital to the strategic interests of our 
country around the world.
  These accounts also contain funding to bring us one step closer to 
developing and deploying defenses against ballistic missiles, something 
for which, and I can guarantee my colleagues, we will all be grateful 
for some day.
  H.R. 1119 contains, Mr. Speaker, a 2.8-percent pay raise for every 
soldier and sailor and marine and air force man serving in our military 
today, and adds significant funding increases for barracks, family 
housing, and child care centers.
  I say to my colleagues, if Members have not visited these military 
installations around our own country and overseas, they really should 
do it, because much of the housing, both in America and overseas, is 
inadequate. It is an embarrassment to put our families of military 
personnel today in them.
  When I served in the Marine Corps, more than 45 years ago, 90 percent 
of us were single. We did not have to worry so much about housing. 
Today, 70 percent of our military people are married, both men and 
women that serve in our military, and they deserve decent quarters to 
live in.
  The bill also sets up a commission to resolve the complex and very 
troubling problems of gender integrated training, while requiring 
psychological screening for all drill instructors.
  This bill does not have, Mr. Speaker, a provision which would 
separate the basic training of men and women in our military, and I 
worry about that. In the Marine Corps, we do not do that. We separate 
them, and we do not have some of these problems that have cropped up. I 
really do hope we will study this issue and try to resolve it. We want 
to be as fair as we can to everyone, but we want to try and solve the 
problems that have cropped up in recent months and years.
  Despite all these excellent provisions in this bill, Mr. Speaker, let 
me go on the record right here and now. We continue to provide 
inadequate, yes, inadequate funds for this Nation's defenses. This bill 
will represent the 13th straight year of inflation-adjusted cuts to 
this budget. No other account in the Federal budget has been cut so 
much.
  Weapons procurements, which have been cut by nearly 70 percent since 
1985, remain at least $14 billion below what the Joint Chiefs of Staff 
say we need to be in order to retain our technological advantage over 
potential adversaries.
  Let us turn that around and compare it to the People's Republic of 
Communist China, where in the last 4 years their budget has almost 
doubled. In the 1990's alone they have increased more than 50 percent, 
and in the last year alone 15 percent. We have to think about that.
  Our military is vastly smaller and older than just 6 years ago during 
Desert Storm. Most experts agree that such a mission would simply be 
impossible today. One great example of that are the bombers that we fly 
today. Some of them, many of them, are more than 40 years old, even 
much older than the pilots flying them.
  In 1991 we had 18 army divisions and used 7 of them in Desert Storm. 
Today we have only 10 divisions, not 18, and are heading toward 9. What 
are we going to do if we have to put another seven divisions back in a 
place called Desert Storm or in the gulf, when China is selling and 
giving Iran missiles that are going to create an incident over there 
that is sure as heck going to draw us back into it? Where will we get 
those seven divisions if we only have nine altogether? That means we 
will have to pull troops from all over the world, put them in one 
place, and then what would we do if there was an outbreak in North 
Korea? We would be in serious trouble.
  Mr. Speaker, as former Secretary of Defense William Perry said, a 
Clinton appointee, we are already at the minimum force structure level 
we need in order to retain our role as a global power. We should think 
about that. Of course, this is not the fault of the Committee on 
National Security, as I said before. They have operated under very 
severe constraints, and those constraints are the repeated 
unwillingness of our President to pay adequate attention to this 
Nation's defense.

                              {time}  1245

  Despite his State of the Union pledge years ago, President Clinton 
continues to cut national defense funding in his budget he presents to 
this body and has fought our defense levels tooth and nail.
  Mr. Speaker, that to me is a scandal, but it is one we can overcome 
by voting for this rule and voting for this bill today and then working 
together to find additional moneys for the No. 1 constitutional duty of 
this House. We, as representatives of our people, are primarily here to 
provide for national defense for all Americans adequate to protect our 
strategic interest in and around the globe and, in doing so, give our 
young men and women in uniform the best state-of-the-art equipment that 
we can give them to carry out their mission should, God forbid, they 
ever be called into harm's way.
  So I would ask my colleagues at the appropriate time to come over 
here and vote for this rule and then let us debate the bill and let us 
pass it.
  Mr. Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.
  Mr. FROST. Mr. Speaker, I have an opening statement. However, at this 
time, prior to my opening statement, I yield 3 minutes to the gentleman 
from California [Mr. Fazio] because of a scheduling conflict; and then, 
with the concurrence of the majority, I would like to proceed to my 
opening statement as soon as the gentleman from California [Mr. Fazio] 
is through.
  Mr. FAZIO of California. Mr. Speaker, I would like to thank my 
colleague, the gentleman from Texas [Mr. Frost] for yielding me this 
time at this point and for many other courtesies that he has rendered, 
particularly in reference to this particular piece of legislation.
  I rise in opposition to this restrictive rule as it currently stands. 
This is a rule, as reported last night, that is outrageous, 
restrictive, undemocratic, and

[[Page H3937]]

unprincipled. And if it cannot be repaired before we vote on it, and I 
certainly hope it will be, it ought to be defeated.
  Regrettably, the Everett-Sabo-Klug-Fazio amendment was not made in 
order last night despite overwhelming evidence that Members of this 
House wanted an opportunity to voice their position on the issue of 
using competition as a means to make DOD dollars more efficient and 
save hundreds of millions of dollars for the taxpayer. It is incredible 
that the Speaker would not let the House vote on this highly important 
public policy, one that could lead, I might add, directly to a veto of 
this entire defense authorization bill.
  In my view, lately we have had all too many votes here on the floor 
to support restrictive and undemocratic rules that muscle Members of 
this House. Without our amendment, this bill undermines the military's 
effort to modernize and prepare for the 21st century by effectively 
eliminating competition for depot maintenance workload. And without 
competition, we lose crucial cost savings and value for the American 
taxpayer.
  This, I might add, was a bipartisan amendment. It crossed the 
political spectrum in this House. And still, the Speaker, as of last 
night, has intervened to make sure that it would not go forward. For a 
while, it looked as though the parochial interests of a few had won out 
on this amendment. But now the unanimous-consent request, if agreed to, 
would restore this and other important amendments.
  If that were to succeed, I would support the rule and hope others 
would, as well. Because then we would have ample time and a breadth of 
issues that we could consider, in the full belief that we have given 
the defense authorization bill due consideration.
  I have always supported defense bills on this floor. However, I 
cannot, in good conscience, support this rule if the request of the 
gentleman from New York [Mr. Solomon], his unanimous-consent request, 
is not agreed to, either through lack of objection or, more likely, as 
a result of a vote that he will ask for.
  For those who have not quite figured it out yet, we are in serious 
jeopardy of not having a defense bill this year. The President will 
veto this bill in its current form. I oppose this bill in its current 
form, and I urge the House to defeat this undemocratic and unprincipled 
rule unless we first vote to amend by supporting the motion of the 
gentleman from New York [Mr. Solomon].
  It needs to be repaired or it needs to be defeated. And there is far 
more on the table here than the simple parochial issues that some think 
we are fighting about. This is about preservation of the American 
defense industrial base. I hope Members will support the motion to be 
made and then the rule and, more importantly, listen carefully to the 
Everett-Sabo amendment when it is offered later to strike language in 
this bill which never was heard in the full committee, but which does 
terrible detriment to our defense establishment.
  Mr. FROST. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume.
  Let me at the outset kind of review where we are. I think it is very 
important. This may be a little confusing for Members. It may be a 
little confusing for the public watching this proceeding.
  The gentleman from New York [Mr. Solomon] is going to renew his 
unanimous-consent request at the end of this hour. If there is 
objection, then he will move this matter, move to amend the rule. And, 
of course, the components that will be in both his unanimous-consent 
request and his motion are the Dellums-Kasich-Foley amendment, the 
Everett amendment, the Frank Amendment No. 85, Traficant No. 3, and 
Weldon No. 110.
  I will support the effort of the gentleman from New York to amend 
this rule. And assuming that is successful, I will support the rule. 
And I think I speak for a number of Members on my side of the aisle. If 
his effort is not successful to amend this rule, there are a very large 
number of Members on this side of the aisle who will vote against the 
rule.
  Let me be clear. Some of my colleagues, on the merits, when we get to 
it will not support the Dellums amendment when it is offered tomorrow 
or tonight, but we support right of the gentleman from California [Mr. 
Dellums] to offer his amendment, and that is a very, very important 
distinction and a very, very important point.
  So I would urge this House, on both sides of the aisle, to support 
the amendment of the gentleman from New York [Mr. Solomon] so that we 
will then be able to pass this rule. Should the amendment not pass, 
there is a real chance this rule will not pass and we will not be able 
to proceed to the consideration of this bill today and the remainder of 
this week.
  Mr. Speaker, I yield to the gentleman from California [Mr. Dellums], 
and then I want to continue my statement.
  Mr. DELLUMS. Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentleman from Texas for 
yielding.
  Mr. Speaker, I just want to say that I appreciate the fact that we 
have resolved what clearly was about to be a major injustice, and I am 
appreciative that I have been given the opportunity to offer the 
amendment on the B-2 that I drafted. There have been other concessions 
that the gentleman from New York [Mr. Solomon] has offered as an 
amendment to the rule.
  I simply rise to say, first of all, I am appreciative of the fact 
that we have sat down to negotiate these matters out in good faith. 
They have been negotiated to this gentleman's satisfaction. I thank my 
colleague for his kind and generous remarks.
  I would simply underscore for emphasis the remarks of my 
distinguished colleague from Texas, Mr. Frost, that those who stood in 
the well of this House, in this Chamber this morning who were 
supportive of my right to see to it that the process had integrity and 
had dignity, that they would support this amendment.
  I know that there are other controversies here because other matters 
were brought into it. I would simply say that at the end of the day, we 
all ought to be about transparency and accountability and, in the 
marketplace of ideas, let us have a free and open debate.
  I have never been a person that said that I had to guarantee that I 
win. I probably lost since 1971 more times than any one Member in this 
Chamber, and I try to learn how to lose with pride and dignity. But 
what I always demand is the right to have a free and honest debate in 
the marketplace, and let us have an honest and open exchange.
  The amendment of the gentleman from New York provides us with this 
opportunity, and I appreciate that. I urge my colleagues who are 
supportive of those principles to support that amendment and let us 
move on.
  Mr. FROST. Mr. Speaker, if I may continue my remarks at this point, 
it is my intention to support H.R. 1119, the Department of Defense 
authorization bill for fiscal year 1998.
  This legislation is one of the most important bills this House will 
consider this year. It authorizes a total of $268 billion in spending 
for our national defense, an amount which will ensure the military 
superiority of the United States in the next year and in the years to 
come.
  This funding level will ensure that production of important weapon 
systems continues, will ensure that the Congress' efforts to improve 
quality of life for our men and women in uniform and their families 
continues, and will ensure that our commitments around the world are 
met.
  H.R. 1119, the National Security Committee has provided $2.1 billion 
for research and development for the F-22, the next-generation air 
superiority fighter which is designed to replace the F-16. The 
Committee has also provided for a total of $1.3 billion for production 
and continued research and development for the V-22 Osprey. The 
addition of this aircraft to the Marine Corps and Special Forces 
arsenal will ensure that our soldiers and marines can be quickly and 
safely delivered into combat.
  The Committee has provided funding to restart those parts of the B-2 
Stealth production line which have been shut down. The B-2 is a vital 
component in our national security system and will continue to serve 
the Air Force well into the next century. H.R. 1119 not only restarts 
production lines, it provides adequate funding for advance procurement 
to ensure that production of this effective weapons system continues in 
future years.

[[Page H3938]]

  Mr. Speaker, the Committee on National Security has provided the 
President's request for a 2.8-percent pay increase for military 
personnel, has provided a new special duty pay for service at hardship 
posts, and has increased the family separation allowance. The men and 
women who make up our armed forces today are being asked to make 
enormous sacrifices while increasing their workload because of 
increased operations worldwide and personnel drawdown.
  I think the Committee has rightly focused much of its attention on 
quality-of-life issues for our soldiers, sailors, airmen, and marines 
and their families, for they are the foundation that ensures that our 
national security is indeed secure.
  Mr. Speaker, I would ask if I may direct one question to the 
gentleman from New York [Mr. Solomon]. It was not clear to me during 
his explanation, on the question of the Everett amendment, as to where 
that would appear, assuming his amendment is adopted and the Everett 
amendment is made in order.
  I would ask the gentleman from New York, do I understand that would 
appear in part A of the attachment to the rule? And if so, where in 
part A will it appear? Would it be at the end of part A?
  Mr. SOLOMON. Mr. Speaker, will the gentleman yield?
  Mr. FROST. I yield to the gentleman from New York.
  Mr. SOLOMON. Mr. Speaker, I will say to the gentleman, it would 
appear at the end of part A, which means it could be brought up at any 
time. As my colleague knows, that is flexible.
  Mr. FROST. I just want to be clear that it was in part A and not part 
B.
  Mr. SOLOMON. At the end of part A.
  Mr. FROST. That is my assumption. I appreciate the gentleman for 
clarifying that.
  I just want to repeat before I yield time to other speakers what I 
said at the outset. The adoption of the Solomon amendment to the rule 
later in this hour is critical. I intend to support that. If the 
Solomon amendment fails, this rule is in jeopardy and the rule may not 
pass. So I will support the Solomon amendment and, assuming the Solomon 
amendment is in order, I will support the rule.
  Mr. Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.
  Mr. SOLOMON. Mr. Speaker, I yield such time as he may consume to the 
gentleman from Florida [Mr. Goss], chairman of the Permanent Select 
Committee on Intelligence and a member of the Committee on Rules as 
well.
  (Mr. GOSS asked and was given permission to revise and extend his 
remarks.)
  Mr. GOSS. Mr. Speaker, I thank my friend, the gentleman from Glen 
Falls, NY [Mr. Solomon], the chairman of the Committee on Rules, for 
yielding the time, and I rise in support of this fair structured rule 
as outlined by the chairman. I think that the gentleman from Texas [Mr. 
Frost] and the gentleman from New York [Mr. Solomon] have clearly laid 
out what is before us in terms of how this is going to unfold.
  While we could not possibly make each of the 120, actually I think it 
was more than 130-plus, amendments in order, I believe that this rule 
allows for debate on amendments in all of the major policy areas. 
Providing for the national defense is arguably one of the only 100-
percent legitimate, constitutionally mandated functions of the Federal 
Government. And that is the business today.
  Unlike some of my colleagues and some of the folks in the 
administration, I have never been able to share the unrelenting 
optimism of those who greeted the end of the cold war as the time to 
set aside all of our national defense systems.

                              {time}  1300

  I happen to believe that the world is still a very dangerous place.
  What this means is that we must place a premium on good intelligence 
and highly trained and responsive armed services. While we have been 
very successful at cutting spending in some areas since the 1980's, I 
cannot support further massive defense cuts, cuts which would undermine 
our long-term security for the sake of some short-term gain.
  H.R. 1119 ups the funding in key readiness accounts and halts 
reductions in active duty military personnel. It gives our soldiers and 
their families long overdue assistance and improved quality of life by 
closing pay gaps, improving military housing and bolstering the defense 
health care system, all matters that we have heard spoken to so far 
today.
  H.R. 1119 will also put modernization programs back on track by 
giving priority to unfunded requirements, encouraging technological 
innovation, and there are many that are very promising, and ensuring 
that the Reserve Forces that are more and more often being called to 
duty have the training and the equipment they need when they are in 
harm's way.
  This is all designed to ensure one thing, that we are up to the 
national security challenge, whatever that challenge is, when it comes: 
The next Pearl Harbor, the next Desert Storm, whatever the form, 
wherever the place, whenever the time.
  Of course, in today's budgetary climate we also recognize that no 
department can or should escape scrutiny or reform. This legislation 
does include measures to downsize unnecessary and low priority 
bureaucracies in the Defense Department and to improve business 
practices in the Defense Department.
  And the rule before us makes a bipartisan manager's amendment in 
order that is going to take further strides in this area. Those who 
serve their country deserve our honor and respect. The best way to 
serve them is to maintain our strong commitment to them and to their 
families and to ensure that they have the resources and the training 
they need when they move on to the battlefield. This legislation gets 
us on the right path. I support it. I urge my colleagues to do the 
same.
  Mr. FROST. Mr. Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from 
Virginia [Mr. Moran].
  Mr. MORAN of Virginia. Mr. Speaker, I oppose this rule, because the 
Committee on Rules had an opportunity to rectify an injustice. By 
choosing not to rectify it, it perpetuated it.
  The gentleman who just spoke said that those who defend our country 
are entitled to the respect that they deserve. But what about after 
they have served our country? Mr. Speaker, the Pentagon, the Department 
of Defense is the only large organization in America that once its 
employees reach the age of 65, they become ineligible for that 
employer's health care. They become ineligible for CHAMPUS, they become 
ineligible for TRICARE, and they are told that the only thing they can 
do is go to a military treatment facility and wait at the end of the 
line until everyone else has been served, and only if there is no one 
else waiting for health care can they then be served. It is wrong. It 
is unfair. We have a solution to it.
  The chairman of the Committee on Rules is a sponsor of my legislation 
that allows Medicare military retirees to join the FEHBP. I thought he 
understood the situation. Apparently he does not understand the 
situation because if he did, he would want to rectify it, I am sure. 
But the Committee on Rules, in reporting out this rule, chose not to 
address it in the way that makes the most sense, which is to make 
military retirees eligible for the Federal Employees Health Benefits 
Plan. There is no other way that military retirees can get decent, 
affordable, accessible health care. All we wanted to do was to 
demonstrate how it can be done in the most efficient manner. It would 
not have cost any money. It was the right thing to do. It should have 
been done. I urge a vote against the rule.
  Mr. FROST. Mr. Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from Ohio 
[Mr. Traficant].
  (Mr. TRAFICANT asked and was given permission to revise and extend 
his remarks.)
  Mr. TRAFICANT. Mr. Speaker, we have one Border Patrol agent for every 
2.5 miles of border as I speak. In the last 6 weeks Border Patrol 
agents have been shot, one almost killed. Eighty percent of certain 
narcotics are coming across the border. Illegal immigration is running 
rampant and the American people have been asking, look, if Congress has 
declared war on illegal immigration, if Congress has declared war on 
drugs, then when is Congress going to engage in the battle? When is 
Congress going to fight?

[[Page H3939]]

  I want to thank the gentleman from New York [Mr. Solomon], the 
chairman; the gentleman from Florida [Mr. Goss], the gentleman from 
Massachusetts [Mr. Moakley] and everyone who has helped to make my 
amendment in order.
  The Traficant amendment says that our military, that right now many 
of them are falling out of chairs without arm rests overseas, can be 
transferred to our border in the Southwest, not to make arrests but to 
detain and hold illegal immigrants and people running across the border 
with backpacks full of narcotics and cocaine for the Border Patrol.
  Mr. Speaker, let me say this. The taxpayers of this country are 
financing chaos literally on our border. It is time to fight. Our 
troops are cashing their checks overseas, going to the theater in Rome, 
for dinner in Frankfurt, and we have narcotics corrupting our cities, 
our government, and destroying the lives of our children. I say it is 
time, Congress, to wage war.
  I want to thank those who are trying and attempting to make this 
amendment in order. I will debate this amendment when it comes. The 
debate on this amendment is necessary. That is where the debate should 
take place, not on the streets but in the halls of Congress.
  Mr. SOLOMON. Mr. Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from 
Colorado [Mr. Hefley], one of the most respected Members of this body.
  Mr. HEFLEY. Mr. Speaker, I support this rule. No, it does not have 
everything in it that I would like. I think the gentleman from Virginia 
mentioned an area that we all ought to be concerned about when we talk 
about military retirees, but I think basically it is a good rule. But 
there is one item that I wish we had made in order that I had 
requested, and that is we are required in the area of defense to do 
more with less now. And so we want every single dollar to be spent in 
the most effective way possible. I wish the gentleman had made my 
Davis-Bacon amendment in order so that we could discuss the amount of 
savings that could come if we exempted from the Davis-Bacon Act 
military construction.
  We are over 70 years behind in our infrastructure capitalization in 
our armed services. In housing alone, depending on the service, we are 
10 to 40 years behind. There simply is not enough money in MILCON to 
get from here to there under the present circumstances.
  And so we went to Secretary Perry and sat down with him when he was 
Secretary of Defense and we said, how can we do better? One of the 
things we did was to set up some privatization of housing on military 
bases. I think that helped some. But we also said, what are the 
impediments to getting the most bang for the buck? And they gave us a 
list of those impediments and we have been trying to deal with those. 
But one of them was the Davis-Bacon Act that is costing enormous sums 
more than we ought to be paying. In fact, the estimates are in the 
billions of dollars of savings if we could simply remove the Davis-
Bacon, the Depression era Davis-Bacon, archaic law from the books where 
military construction is concerned.
  If we want the most for the money, Mr. Speaker, this is something 
that needs to be done and we need to consider it in the future even 
though it is not considered in this particular bill.
  Mr. FROST. Mr. Speaker, I yield 3 minutes to the gentleman from 
Mississippi [Mr. Taylor].
  Mr. TAYLOR of Mississippi. Mr. Speaker, I want to thank the gentleman 
for yielding me this time. I am going to oppose this rule for a number 
of reasons. But first and foremost, this is supposed to be a democracy. 
This is supposed to be the place where the Members who were sent here 
by about 550,000 people, citizens of this country, have the opportunity 
to make things better. Unfortunately the Committee on Rules in many 
instances decided that those people do not count, that we cannot make 
things better, that we do not even have the chance to make things 
better.
  One of the things that I would have very much liked to addressed and 
asked the Committee on Rules yesterday to address involves the war on 
drugs. Our Nation spends about $12 billion on the war on drugs. As I 
speak we have AWAC's flying over Central and South America. We have 
what is called E-3's and P-3's flying over Central and South America. 
We have troops on the ground in Colombia in at least 3 different 
locations. At one of those locations about 80 miles away, the Colombia 
guerrillas overran a Colombian army base and either killed or captured 
everyone there in the month of February. It is a real war, with real 
deaths. Just a few years ago in Peru, one of our C-130's on a 
reconnaissance patrol was shot up by Peruvian aircraft. We do not know 
whether he did it by mistake or on purpose. We do know that an American 
airman fell 11,000 feet to his death. It is a real war, with real 
money, and real American lives being lost.
  One amendment that I wanted to offer that the Committee on Rules 
cowardly did not even vote on would have said we need to test those 
civilians who work for the Department of Defense to see whether or not 
they are on drugs, particularly those involved in the counternarcotics 
effort. What good does it do to spend all of this money and put 
people's lives on the line if the people who are manning the aircraft, 
who are making them work, people who know where the missions are going 
to go, are on drugs? What if they are in cahoots with the drug dealers?
  The gentleman from New York [Mr. Solomon] did not even think it was 
worth voting on. The gentleman from California [Mr. Dreier] did not 
think it was worth voting on. The gentleman from Florida [Mr. Goss] did 
not think it was worth voting on. The gentleman from Georgia [Mr. 
Linder], the gentlewoman from Ohio [Ms. Pryce], the gentleman from 
Florida [Mr. Diaz-Balart], the gentleman from Colorado [Mr. McInnis], 
the gentleman from Washington [Mr. Hastings] and the gentlewoman from 
North Carolina [Mrs. Myrick] did not even think it was worth voting on. 
Are they going to tell me in those States there is not a drug problem, 
that we do not need to know whether or not the guys who are supposed to 
be on our side being paid by our country are on drugs?
  Ronald Reagan back in 1986 when he was the President of the United 
States called for a drug testing policy, but it was not mandatory. I 
think we need to know if the people who work for you and me are on 
drugs. It is a shame that the Committee on Rules does not feel the same 
way. I urge my colleagues to vote against this rule.
  Mr. FROST. Mr. Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from 
Vermont [Mr. Sanders].
  Mr. SANDERS. I thank the gentleman for yielding me this time.
  Mr. Speaker, while the recent changes in the rule announced by the 
gentleman from New York [Mr. Solomon] certainly improve the bill, and I 
will strongly be supporting the Dellums amendment, among others, it is 
my view that when we are dealing with a $268 billion authorization, an 
authorization which ultimately determines the priorities of this 
country, that every Member of this body who has thought about this 
issue has a right to have their amendment offered on the floor of the 
House and debated on the floor of the House.
  In a fundamental way, today we are discussing the priorities of this 
Nation. We are talking about spending tens and tens of billions of 
dollars on weapons systems that many experts think we do not need while 
at the same time Members of Congress want to cut back on Medicare, want 
to cut back on Medicaid, while we continue to have the highest rate of 
childhood poverty in the industrialized world, while people are 
sleeping on the street, while millions of families cannot afford to 
send their kids to college.
  Mr. Speaker, what we are talking about today are national priorities. 
Do we put more money into B-2 bombers and less money into health care 
for our senior citizens? More money into submarines and not adequately 
fund education or health care for the people? Those are issues of 
enormous consequence. Every Member of this body should have a right to 
participate in that debate.
  Mr. FROST. Mr. Speaker, I yield 1 minute to the gentlewoman from New 
York [Mrs. Maloney].
  Mrs. MALONEY of New York. I thank the gentleman for yielding me this 
time.
  Mr. Speaker, this Congress is looking at the biggest peacetime 
military scandal in recent history. Too often women

[[Page H3940]]

enter the military to serve their country, yet end up having to defend 
themselves. We have seen cases of rape, sexual assault and harassment 
at every level. Military standards of courage, honor, and valor have 
given way to sexism, favoritism and power.

                              {time}  1315

  And this Congress is willing to only make minimal efforts toward 
reform.
  More than 2 months ago, I introduced a bill asking for a commission 
to review the entire military justice system. My efforts toward adding 
the commission to the DOD bill were rejected. I congratulate the 
Committee on National Security for at least including part of my 
proposal in their bill, but it falls far too short of what is needed.
  We have seen enough scandals, the military does not need another soap 
opera, and crisis management is not going to solve the problem. I urge 
a no vote on the rule.
  Mr. SOLOMON. Mr. Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from 
Tennessee [Mr. Hilleary].
  Mr. HILLEARY. Mr. Speaker, would the chairman of the Committee on 
Rules enter into a colloquy with me for a couple of minutes?
  Mr. SOLOMON. I would be glad to enter into a colloquy with the 
gentleman, Mr. Speaker.
  Mr. HILLEARY. Mr. Speaker, I want to thank the gentleman for making 
the amendment regarding pulling troops out of Bosnia in order. As my 
colleague knows, it calls for bringing our troops home from Bosnia at 
the end of this year. It also allows the President to make a written 
request to extend that date for 6 months. We want to show our 
colleagues that the President will, in fact, get that vote should he 
request in written form to extend for 6 months the time for pulling 
them out. We provided in the amendment for the Senate expediated 
procedures that guaranteed such a vote, and the House, taking the 
gentleman's advice, we did not provide that, but I know that in 
consultation with the gentleman he wants to assure our colleagues that 
they would get that vote.
  Mr. SOLOMON. Mr. Speaker, will the gentleman yield?
  Mr. HILLEARY. I yield to the gentleman from New York.
  Mr. SOLOMON. Mr. Speaker, I most certainly do, and I want to, above 
all else I want to bring those troops home. Those troops never should 
have been there in the first place.
  As my colleagues know, American foreign policy has always been under 
both Democrat and Republican leaderships up until this President has 
been to help to defend our treaty allies against outside military 
aggression. There is no outside military aggression in this place 
called Bosnia, the troops never should have been there, and we need to 
get them home as soon as we can. Not only is it a terrible expense to 
have them there, but it is draining the rest of our military budget as 
far as operation and maintenance is concerned.
  So I commend the gentleman, and we will do everything we can to make 
sure there is going to be a vote.
  This cuts off the troops as of December 31. If the President wants to 
ask for another 6 months, then we need to debate it on this floor. It 
is a good amendment, and I support the gentleman.
  Mr. HILLEARY. Mr. Speaker, I appreciate it, and I think it is a good 
rule, and I strongly urge my colleagues to support it.
  Mr. FROST. Mr. Speaker, I would inquire how much time is remaining on 
each side.
  The SPEAKER pro tempore (Mr. Calvert). The gentleman from Texas [Mr. 
Frost] has 9 minutes remaining, and the gentleman from New York [Mr. 
Solomon] has 12 minutes.
  Mr. FROST. Mr. Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from New 
Jersey [Mr. Pallone].
  Mr. PALLONE. Mr. Speaker, I also rise in opposition to the rule.
  I had an amendment, as I know many others did, which was germane and, 
I think, important which was denied by the committee for consideration, 
and I do believe very strongly that there should have been more 
amendments allowed including the one that I proposed.
  My amendment would strike section 1021 of the bill. That section 
exempts the Navy and MARAD from the provisions of section 6 of the 
Toxic Substances Control Act which governed disposal of PCB's and other 
hazardous materials on vessels which are being exported for scrap or 
sunk in ocean waters during tests of operational readiness. This 
section also exempts the Navy and MARAD from related provisions in the 
Resource Recovery and Conservation Act and the Marine Protection 
Research and Sanctuaries Act.
  Under these regulations export of PCB's for disposal is banned. While 
the Navy and MARAD may wish to export ships for scrap, they have been 
barred from doing so because the vessels contain PCB's which are highly 
toxic, persistant and mobile, and I think that is a pretty good reason 
to put the brakes on these sales, at least in the short run.
  Overseas scrapping of PCB containing vessels poses real threat to 
foreign workers in the environment. Section 1021 allows the Navy and 
MARAD to be treated in a more privileged manner than private ship 
owners, and let me add there is no national security reason to treat 
them differently.
  Section 1021 is opposed by the EPA for these reasons, it is opposed 
by the administration, and finally I do not think this Congress wants 
to go on the record in support of allowing ocean dumping of toxic 
materials. Yet that is just what section 1021 would allow. By exempting 
the Navy and MARAD from the Marine Protection Act, which by the way is 
also under the jurisdiction of other committees, it would allow them to 
sink ships laden with PCB's and other toxins in our oceans.
  What we are doing here is reopening the ocean dumping ban, and that 
is something which I know that I cannot stomach, and I really think 
that the majority of my colleagues on both sides of the aisle share my 
view.
  For these reasons, Mr. Speaker, and many others that I have not 
stated I would urge my colleagues to vote against this rule.
  Mr. FROST. Mr. Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from 
Maryland [Mr. Hoyer].
  (Mr. HOYER asked and was given permission to revise and extend his 
remarks.)
  Mr. HOYER. Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentleman for yielding this time 
to me.
  Mr. Speaker, I rise in opposition to this rule.
  Unfortunately the chairman of the Committee on Rules was not present 
when I testified before the Committee on Rules, but immediately 
preceding me was a gentleman from Alabama talking about the McVeigh 
trial and that 168 Americans, innocent children, women, Government 
workers, law enforcement officials, people seeking services were 
murdered by a violent criminal heinous act. All of us believe that 
justice is being done in that case.
  Mr. Speaker, 1,000 times that number, yes, 10,000 times that number, 
have been murdered, raped, driven from their homes, subjected to 
genocide.
  There is no one on this floor for genocide. Everyone on this floor 
would say that in a civil world international genocide, as we said in 
Nuremberg, needs to be acted against collectively by the international 
community and hold accountable international criminals.
  I sought to offer an amendment to carry forward the Dayton Peace 
accords which said that all of the signatories to that accord and all 
the nations of the United Nations would hold accountable the criminals 
in Bosnia.
  Now I understand that there are debates about what does that expose 
us to, how far should we go with our troops? I understand those are 
legitimate questions. What I do not understand, Mr. Speaker, is why we 
could not debate that on the floor of this, the people's House.
  Mr. SOLOMON. Mr. Speaker, I yield 3 minutes to the gentleman from New 
York [Mr. Forbes], a very distinguished member of the New York 
delegation.
  Mr. FORBES. Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentleman for yielding me the 
time, and I appreciate the opportunity.
  I am extremely concerned because small businesses across this country 
will be ill-served because we have been denied the opportunity to 
extend the very important program that this Congress enacted back in 
1994 to help all those small businesses who during the cold war kept 
their lines open, purchased their specialized equipment to

[[Page H3941]]

provide for the national security and the defense of this Nation.
  Back in 1994 this program allowed businesses that were suffering 
because of the 13 years, as the good chairman mentioned, 13 years of 
downsizing of defense; these small businesses have suffered, and to 
allow them to convert from defense businesses to commercial 
applications, this delta program is critical and something very unique 
in Washington.
  Mr. Speaker, we were not asking for any more money. The money is 
already there. All we were asking was for the simple opportunity to 
extend a program that helps small businesses in defense-dependent areas 
like New York and California and Massachusetts and many of the States 
across the country.
  This program is expiring, and I am deeply disappointed that the 
Committee on Rules denied America's small businesses the opportunity to 
continue to partake in this program as we leave the cold war and look 
for new opportunities to help this Nation.
  Mr. FROST. Mr. Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the gentlewoman from 
Texas [Ms. Jackson-Lee].
  (Ms. JACKSON-LEE of Texas asked and was given permission to revise 
and extend her remarks.)
  Ms. JACKSON-LEE of Texas. Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentleman from 
Texas very much for yielding.
  The men and women of the military are some of our most precious 
resources. Each and every day when they volunteer for us, they protect 
this flag and the United States of America. How unfortunate, however, 
that the Committee on Rules decided that a commission to study military 
justice was not appropriate. Not since 1983 have we decided to review 
the idea of how military justice is rendered. I think it was very 
important.
  The amendment offered by my colleague, the gentlewoman from New York 
[Mrs. Maloney], along with myself was to establish a Commission on 
Military Justice so that we could understand in this climate of sexual 
harassment and misconduct accusations against the men and women in the 
service, for once and for all we could understand what the processes 
are, what the court martialing process is, whether or not we have an 
antiquated system that does not respond to the good of the military 
system that we need to have.
  I am very disappointed that we did not understand that there is an 
inequity in treatment between men and women in the military. There is a 
question about past adulterous acts as they may relate to one's 
promotion. There is a question about one particular ethnic or racial 
group is targeted over another. We do not need to speculate. We do not 
need to make accusations. We needed a commission in order to 
understand, and the American people could understand, where almost 70 
percent of them said they thought it was an unequal justice system 
between enlisted men and women and those who are officers.
  We should not deny the rights of those who have given or offered 
their life in the U.S. military. Let us have a fair system to review 
this military code of justice so that we can treat men and women in the 
military fairly and we can promote the men and women who deserve to be 
promoted, and that they do not need to be denied those opportunities 
because of infractions that neither one of us would consider 
detrimental.
  It is important to have had that commission. I am sorry that we would 
not have to debate it today. Vote ``no'' on this rule.
  Mr. Speaker, I rise in vehement opposition to this rule for H.R. 
1119, the National Defense Authorization. The rule is far too 
restrictive.
  Yesterday, Representative Carolyn Maloney and I came before the Rules 
Committee to offer an amendment that would have created a bipartisan 
independent Commission to examine systemic problems in the military 
justice system. The Commission would be required to submit their 
recommendations regarding any changes the Commission finds necessary in 
the judicial, law enforcement, punishment, and data collection areas, 
to the President and to the Congress.
  Not since 1983, in the Military Justice Act Advisory Commission 
Report, has a comprehensive review of the military justice system been 
undertaken. A new review of the now antiquated military justice system 
is critical in light of recent media reports of sexual misconduct in 
the military and scandals such as those at Aberdeen and the cases of 
Sergeant Major McKinney, Lieutenant Flinn, and General Ralston. These 
cases highlight the fact that there is a clear lack of uniformity in 
sentencing in the military, particularly when it comes to sexual 
misconduct and assault crimes.
  This Commission is also necessary to address the disparity between 
the treatment of men and women in the military, as well as the 
targeting of African-Americans and minorities in the military justice 
system.
  This rule is outrageously restrictive, Mr. Speaker. I urge my 
colleagues to vote against the rule and in so doing signal their 
support of a Commission to assist us in creating a just and equitable 
military justice system.
  Mr. SOLOMON. Mr. Speaker, I yield 3 minutes to the very distinguished 
gentleman from Indiana [Mr. Buyer], subcommittee chairman of the 
Committee on National Security.
  Mr. BUYER. Mr. Speaker, I would first like to begin by responding to 
my good friend, the gentlewoman from Texas [Ms. Jackson-Lee]. As 
certainly chairman having direct oversight of the military judicial 
system, the subcommittee is moving systematically and methodically in 
its reviews of many of the issues regarding sexual misconduct, 
fraternization, and sexual harassment, and I believe that she is 
jumping to incredible conclusions by saying inequities with regard to 
race or gender which called a racial target group, group targets. We 
are moving methodically. This commission was not at all timely. We have 
some reviews already as an amendment in the bill itself, and I commend 
the chairman for not including this commission.
  On the issue with regard to Bosnia, I want to commend the chairman 
for permitting my base amendment with regard to Bosnia. As I 
understand, that in the rule we have my colleague has permitted a 
perfecting amendment to my base bill. My base amendment is that I want 
the President's date of June 30, 1998 to be the cut-off date, no more 
funding for the troops, we bring the troops back, we have a reporting 
mechanism. We want the President to report to the Congress his plans 
for withdrawal, and we also want him to report to us on his plans post-
June 30 date on how we cooperate with our allies because we also, as 
Republicans, and every Member of this House wants to insure that it is, 
in fact, a durable peace in the Balkans.
  By the Committee on Rules having permitted a perfecting amendment, 
does that mean that the Republican leadership supports the Van Hilleary 
position over my position?
  Mr. SOLOMON. Mr. Speaker, will the gentleman yield?
  Mr. BUYER. I yield to the gentleman from New York.
  Mr. SOLOMON. Mr. Speaker, the answer is no. There is no Republican 
leadership position on this issue. The gentleman's amendment was made 
in order first as base text for the amendment because of his seniority 
and his chairmanship of the subcommittee. The gentleman has a excellent 
amendment. We both and, I think, the sponsors of the other amendment as 
well, want those troops out of there.

                              {time}  1330

  We want to do it in the most expeditious way that we can.
  The gentleman's approach is good in that it agrees with the 
President, and yet 6 months before that cutoff date of June 30, the 
gentleman requires the President to give us a policy of how we will get 
out of there, so that our allies in Europe, because it is a European 
problem, it is a regional problem in that part of the world, can plan 
on America's intent.
  So the gentleman's amendment is excellent. To tell the gentleman the 
truth, I do not know how I am going to vote, because both gentlemen 
have good amendments.
  Mr. BUYER. Mr. Speaker, reclaiming my time, I want to thank the 
gentleman for allowing so many different opinions to shine on the issue 
in Bosnia. This is very important to our Nation and that of our allies.
  Mr. FROST. Mr. Speaker, I yield 1 minute 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, I rise to oppose this restrictive rule. The 
bill authorizes $3.7 billion more on procurement alone than the 
administration requests. We should not spend billions of

[[Page H3942]]

dollars that the American people do not have to buy weapons we do not 
have to fight enemies that do not exist.
  Mr. Speaker, I offered an amendment that would have reduced the 
spending for the F-22 fighter plane to the level approved by the Senate 
Committee on Armed Services. We should not be funding the development 
of three competing fighter planes for the same mission, but the rule 
does not permit my amendment even to be discussed on the floor of the 
House. Is it perhaps because the contractor, the prime contractor is 
based in Marietta, GA?
  It is a disservice to the American people that this amendment and 
scores of others that would have allowed for the discussion of the size 
and scope of this budget, were barred from the floor of the House. If 
we had a proper rule, we could discuss cost overruns, its program 
delays, its fuel leaks, its prototypes that crash and burn, brought to 
you by the hard-earned dollars of the American taxpayer, and we could 
vote on that funding.
  But the rule will not permit that. A rule that prevents such debate 
and prevents the House from voting on whether to waste billions of 
dollars on three separate duplicative programs should not be approved. 
I urge my colleagues to defeat it.
  Mr. SOLOMON. Mr. Speaker, I yield 1 minute to the gentlewoman from 
Florida [Mrs. Fowler], another very outstanding Member of this body 
from Florida and a member of the committee.
  Mrs. FOWLER. Mr. Speaker, I thank the Chairman and I appreciate all 
of his support. However, I do have to stand and oppose this rule if the 
amendment to the rule is adopted.
  The House committee on National Security carefully crafted the 
language in this bill in order to overturn an effort by this President 
to politicize the BRAC process. The Everett amendment, which is an 
attempt to amend the rule with the Everett amendment, would overturn 
the carefully crafted language in the House committee bill and put 
privatization in place back in the bill. Now they call it public-
private competition, but make no mistake about it. The way they have 
structured this public-private competition, it is privatization in 
place.
  The BRAC process will remain politicized if the Everett amendment is 
passed today. It should not be a part of this rule. We need to ensure 
that the integrity of the BRAC process is maintained. Many of us, I 
have a business in my district that is being closed, 8,000 jobs lost. 
But we did not go and say let us politicize the process, let us keep it 
open. The BRAC process was set up to keep politics out of it. Defeat 
the Everett amendment, and if it is in the rule, defeat the rule.
  Mr. FROST. Mr. Speaker, I yield 1 minute to the gentleman from 
California [Mr. Condit].
  Mr. CONDIT. Mr. Speaker, I stand today to oppose the rule. I have a 
great deal of respect for the chairman of the Committee on Rules, but I 
want those of my colleagues who can hear me, who can hear the sound of 
my voice to listen to the amendment that was turned down by the 
Committee on Rules yesterday. Here we are talking about the military, 
we are talking about equipment, we are talking about facilities.
  I had an amendment that said we have to honor, we have to honor our 
commitment to the men and women who serve in the military. If we tell 
them we are going to provide certain benefits to them when they retire, 
they are entitled to them and we ought to keep the promise. That is the 
simple amendment.
  I tell my colleagues, it does not make any difference how many pieces 
of equipment we build, what kind of facilities we build. If we do not 
have good men and women serving in the military, it makes no 
difference. All I was asking is that we honor our commitment.
  The U.S. military, when it makes a commitment to a young person who 
comes in and signs up and says they are going to get health benefits, 
they are going to get certain benefits when they retire, all of us 
know, we have casework. We know. they have a problem getting those 
benefits.
  Mr. Speaker, we are asking the United States to honor their 
commitment, to honor it.
  Mr. FROST. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself the balance of my time.
  Mr. Speaker, as I stated at the outset, it is my intention to support 
the amendment about to be offered by the gentleman from New York [Mr. 
Solomon] to the rule. It is a balanced amendment which provides balance 
to this rule. I hope it is successful. If it is successful, I will 
support the rule. If it is not successful, a number of Members on my 
side of the aisle will vote no on the rule. I urge adoption of the 
Solomon amendment, and if the Solomon amendment is adopted, I urge 
adoption of the rule.
  Mr. Speaker, I yield back the balance of my time.
  Mr. SOLOMON. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself the balance of my time.
  Mr. Speaker, it is necessary to apologize to Members when we have a 
bill like this that deals with $260 billion, $270 billion of the 
Federal budget. I would like to bring this bill on the floor as an open 
rule and let all 435 Members work their will, but, Mr. Speaker, we just 
cannot do that. We have never done it, even when the Democrats had 
control of the House.
  We have to have a structured rule in order to finish this bill in 4 
or 5 or 6 days. We struggled with all of these amendments. We tried to 
be fair. We tried to give those amendments that are agreed to by both 
sides, to put them on the floor for reasonable debate, but it just is 
not possible to do that.
  Mr. Speaker, what we do have is a fair rule that has certainly taken 
into consideration as many Democrat Members as we could, as many 
Republican Members as we could. It is a fair balance, which I think the 
manager of the bill on that side of the aisle has spoken to.
  But I think the important thing is that, Mr. Speaker, we do not ever 
want to look at the defense authorization as a jobs program. But I am 
going to tell my colleagues something, it is one of the best jobs 
programs we have in America. Because when you look at the young men and 
women that are serving in our military today, we can be so proud of 
those people. They come from all walks of life, they are a real cross-
section of this country. Whether they serve 20 years in the military or 
just 4 years like I think the acting speaker did, or 2 years, they 
learn something as citizens. They may have come out of an inner city 
perhaps, and maybe they did not have a father.
  Mr. Speaker, when I grew up, my dad walked out on me and my mom at 
the very height of the Depression. We never saw him again. We had tough 
times. But, Mr. Speaker, these young men growing up, when they go in 
the military, they learn words like pride and patriotism and 
voluntarism. They learn what good citizenship is. When they get out, 
whether it is 20 years later or 2 years later, they go back to where 
they came from and they become good, upstanding citizens in that 
community.
  That is why this bill is so important; that is why this level of 
funding is so important.
  Mr. SKELTON. Mr. Speaker, will the gentleman yield?
  Mr. SOLOMON. I yield to the gentleman from Missouri.
  Mr. SKELTON. Mr. Speaker, I would like to associate myself with the 
gentleman's recent remarks about the young men and women in uniform. I 
am convinced, after being on the committee on which I serve, formerly 
known as the Armed Services Committee and now the Committee on National 
Security, and meeting with them in all parts of this country and other 
countries where they are literally on the edge in representing the 
American interests, that they are the finest military we have ever had. 
They are truly a national treasure, and it is up to us in this Congress 
under the Constitution to take care of them, to make sure that we have 
them properly equipped, properly trained, and that we keep the good 
people in, encourage them so that the days and years ahead, when those 
troubles come, and sure as the Lord made little green apples, those 
troubles will come, whether they can either deter or stop aggression.
  I appreciate the gentleman's kind remarks about the people in the 
military, and that is why I think this bill is worthwhile.
  Mr. SOLOMON. Mr. Speaker, reclaiming my time, the gentleman has some 
good amendments made in order and I will be supporting every one of 
them.

[[Page H3943]]

  Mr. Speaker, in closing, let me say that not only do they learn these 
words and actions of good citizenship, they even get a little religion. 
They learn how not to use drugs. When they go back into their 
communities, they become forces in that community, and that is why we 
absolutely must give them the best that money can buy as far as state 
of the art technology for weapons, if, God forbid, they ever should be 
called into harm's way.
  That is why I would now, Mr. Speaker, offer an amendment to the rule, 
which is at the desk.


                    Amendment Offered by Mr. Solomon

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

       Amendment offered by Mr. Solomon:
       Strike section 7 and insert in lieu thereof the following:
       Sec. 7. House Resolutions 161, 162, and 165 are laid on the 
     table.
       Sec. 8. (a) Notwithstanding any other provision of this 
     resolution, the amendment numbered 7 in part 1 of House 
     Report 105-137 may be offered in the following modified form, 
     shall be debatable for 90 minutes equally divided and 
     controlled by Representative Dellums of California or his 
     designee and an opponent, and shall otherwise be considered 
     as though printed in House Report 105-137:
       At the end of title I (page 23, before line 7), insert the 
     following new sections:

     SEC. 123. B-2 AIRCRAFT PROGRAM.

       (a) Prohibition of Additional Aircraft.--None of the amount 
     appropriated pursuant to the authorization of appropriations 
     in section 103(1) may be obligated for advanced procurement 
     of B-2 aircraft beyond the 21 deployable aircraft authorized 
     by law before the date of the enactment of this Act.
       (b) Production Line Curtailment.--None of the amount 
     appropriated pursuant to the authorization of appropriations 
     in section 103(1) may be obligated for reestablishment of the 
     production line for B-2 aircraft. The Secretary of the Air 
     Force may use up to $21,800,000 of funds available for the B-
     2 aircraft program for curtailment of the B-2 production 
     line.
       (c) Funding Reduction.--The amount provided in section 
     103(1) for procurement of aircraft for the Air Force is 
     hereby reduced by $331,200,000.

     SEC. 124. INCREASE IN AMOUNT FOR GUARD AND RESERVE EQUIPMENT.

       The amount provided in section 105 for procurement of 
     equipment for the reserve components is hereby increased by 
     $331,200,000.
       (b) Notwithstanding any other provision of this resolution, 
     the amendment numbered 15 in part 2 of House Report 105-137 
     may be offered in the following modified form, shall be 
     debatable for 20 minutes equally divided and controlled by 
     Representative Frank of Massachusetts or his designee and an 
     opponent, and shall otherwise be considered as though printed 
     in House Report 105-137:
       At the end of title XII (page 379, after line 19), insert 
     the following new section:

      SEC.1205. LIMITATION ON PAYMENTS FOR COST OF NATO EXPANSION.

       (a) The amount spent by the United States as its share of 
     the total cost to North Atlantic Treaty Organization member 
     nations of the admission of new member nations to the North 
     American Treaty Organization may not exceed 10 percent of the 
     cost of expansion or a total of $2,000,000,000, whichever is 
     less, for fiscal years 1998 through 2010.
       (b) If at any time during the period specified in 
     subsection (a), the United States' share of the total cost of 
     expanding the North Atlantic Treaty Organization exceeds 10 
     percent, no further United States funds may be expended for 
     the cost of such expansion until that percentage is reduced 
     to below 10 percent.
       (c) The following amendment may be offered by 
     Representative Everett of Alabama or his designee, shall be 
     debatable for one hour equally divided and controlled by 
     Representative Everett or his designee and an opponent, and 
     shall be in order as though printed as the last amendment in 
     part 1 of House Report 105-137:
       Strike out sections 332 through 335 (page 68, line 10 
     through page 77, line 21).
       (d) The following amendment may be offered by 
     Representative Weldon of Pennsylvania or his designee and 
     shall be in order as though printed as the penultimate 
     amendment in part 2 of House Report 105-137:
       At the end of title XII (page 379, after line 19), insert 
     the following new section:

     SEC.   . SENSE OF CONGRESS ON NEED FOR RUSSIAN OPENNESS ON 
                   THE YAMANTAU MOUNTAIN PROJECT.

       (a) Findings.--Congress finds as follows:
       (1) The United States and Russia have been working in the 
     post-Cold War era to establish a new strategic relationship 
     based on cooperation and openness between the two nations.
       (2) This effort to establish a new strategic relationship 
     has resulted in the conclusion or agreement in principle on a 
     number of far-reaching agreements, including START I, II, and 
     III, a revision in the Conventional Forces in Europe Treaty, 
     and a series of other agreements (such as the Comprehensive 
     Test Ban Treaty and the Chemical Weapons Convention), 
     designed to further reduce bilateral threats and limit the 
     proliferation of weapons of mass destruction.
       (3) These far-reaching agreement were based on the 
     understanding between the United States and Russia that there 
     would be a good faith effort on both sides to comply with the 
     letter and spirit of the agreements, that both sides would 
     end their Cold War competition, and that neither side would 
     seek to gain unilateral strategic advantage over the other.
       (4) Reports indicate that Russia has been pursuing 
     construction of a massive underground facility of unknown 
     purpose at Yamantau Mountain and the city of Mezhgorye 
     (formerly the settlements of Beloretsk-15 and Beloretsk-16) 
     that is designed to survive a nuclear war and appears to 
     exceed reasonable defense requirements.
       (5) The Yamantau Mountain project does not appear to be 
     consistent with the lowering of strategic threats, openness, 
     and cooperation that is the basis of the post-Cold War 
     strategic partnership between the United States and Russia.
       (6) Russia appears to have engaged in a campaign to 
     deliberately conceal and mislead the United States about the 
     purpose of the Yamantau Mountain project, as shown by the 
     following:
       (A) General and Bashkortostan, People's Deputy Leonid 
     Akimovich Tsirkunov, commandant of Beloretsk-15 and 
     Beloretsk-16, stated in 1991 and 1992 that the purpose of the 
     construction there was to build a mining and ore-
     processing complex, but later claimed that it was an 
     underground warehouse for food and clothing.
       (B) M.Z. Shakiorov, a former communist official in the 
     region, alleged in 1992 that the Yamantau Mountain facility 
     was to become a shelter for the Russian national leadership 
     in case of nulcear war.
       (C) Sources of the Segodnya newspaper in 1996 claimed that 
     the Yamantau Mountain project was associated with the so-
     called ``Dead Hand'' nuclear retaliatory command and control 
     system for strategic missiles.
       (D) Then Commander-in-Chief of the Strategic Rocket Forces 
     General Igor Sergeyev denied that the facility was associated 
     with nuclear forces.
       (E) R. Zhukov, a Deputy in the State Assembly, in 1996 
     claimed that the Yamantau Mountain facility belonged to 
     ``atomic scientists'' and posed a serious environmental 
     hazard.
       (F) Russia's 1997 federal budget lists the project as a 
     closed territory containing installations of the Ministry of 
     Defense, while First Deputy Defense Minister Audrey Kokoshin 
     recently stated that the Ministry of Defense has nothing to 
     do with the project.
       (7) Continued cooperation and progress on forging a new 
     strategic relationship between the United States and Russia 
     requires that both nations make transparent to one another 
     major projects underway or plans under consideration that 
     could alter the strategic balance sought in arms control 
     agreements or otherwise be construed by the other side as an 
     important new potential threat.
       (8) The United States has allowed senior Russian military 
     and government officials to have access to key strategic 
     facilities of the United States by providing tours of the 
     North American Air Defense (NORAD) command at Cheyenne 
     Mountain and the United States Strategic Command (STRACOM) 
     headquarters in Omaha, Nebraska, among other sites, and by 
     providing extensive briefings on the operations of those 
     facilities.
       (b) Sense of Congress.--In light of the findings in 
     subsection (a), it is the sense of Congress that--
       (1) the Russian government should provide to the United 
     States a written explanation on the principal and secondary 
     purposes of the Yamantau Mountain project, specifically 
     identifying the intended end user and explaining the heavy 
     investment in that project;
       (2) the Russian government should allow a United States 
     delegation, including officials of the executive branch, 
     Members of Congress, and United States experts on underground 
     facilities, to have full access to the Yamantau Mountain 
     project to inspect the facility and all rail-served buildings 
     in the southern and northern settlements located near 
     Yamantau; and
       (3) the Russian government should direct senior officials 
     responsible for the Yamantau Mountain project to explain to 
     such a United States delegation the purpose and operational 
     concept of all completed and planned underground facilities 
     at Yamantau Mountain in sufficient detail (including through 
     the use of drawings and diagrams) to support a high-
     confidence judgment by the United States delegation that the 
     design is consistent with the official explanations.
       (e) The following amendment may be offered by 
     Representative Traficant of Ohio or his designee and shall be 
     in order as though printed as the last amendment in part 2 of 
     House Report 105-137:
       At the end of subtitle C of title X (page 326, after line 
     6), insert the following new section:

     SEC. 1032. ASSIGNMENT OF DEPARTMENT OF DEFENSE PERSONNEL TO 
                   ASSIST IMMIGRATION AND NATURALIZATION SERVICE 
                   AND CUSTOMS SERVICE.

       (a) Assignment Authority of Secretary of Defense.--Chapter 
     18 of title 10, United States Code, is amended by inserting 
     after section 374 the following new section:

     ``Sec. 374a. Assignment of personnel to assist border patrol 
       and control

       ``(a) Assignment Authorized.--The Secretary of Defense may 
     assign up to 10,000 Department of Defense personnel at any 
     one time to assist--

[[Page H3944]]

       ``(1) the Immigration and Naturalization Service is 
     preventing the entry of terrorists, drug traffickers, and 
     illegal aliens into the United States; and
       ``(2) the United States Customs Service in the inspection 
     of cargo, vehicles, and aircraft at points of entry into the 
     United States.
       ``(b) Request for Assignment.--The assignment of Department 
     of Defense personnel under subsection (a) may only occur--
       ``(1) at the request of the Attorney General, in the case 
     of an assignment to the Immigration and Naturalization 
     Service; and
       ``(2) at the request of the Secretary of the Treasury, in 
     the case of an assignment to the United States Customs 
     Service.''.
       ``(c) Reimbursement Requirement.--Section 377 of this title 
     shall apply in the case of Department of Defense personnel 
     assigned under subsection (a).''.
       (b) Clerical Amendment.--The table of sections at the 
     beginning of such chapter is amended by inserting after the 
     item relating to section 374 the following new item:

``374a. Assignment of personnel to assist border patrol and control''.

       Sec. 9. Notwithstanding section 2(e) of this resolution, 
     the additional period of general debate on the subject of 
     United States forces in Bosnia shall precede the offering of 
     amendments numbered 8 and 9 in part 1 of the report of the 
     Committee on Rules rather than the amendments numbered 1 and 
     2 in part 1 of the report.

  Mr. SOLOMON (during the reading). Mr. Speaker, I ask unanimous 
consent that the amendment be considered as read and printed in the 
Record.
  The SPEAKER pro tempore (Mr. Gilchrest). Is there objection to the 
request of the gentleman from New York?
  There was no objection.
  Mr. SOLOMON. Mr. Speaker, this amendment is the exact unanimous 
consent request that I propounded early on in the beginning of this 
debate. This amendment, which has been approved by the other side of 
the aisle, I would say to the gentleman from Texas [Mr. Frost], is 
acceptable to both sides.
  Ms. MILLENDER-McDONALD. Mr. Speaker, I rise in opposition to the 
rule. I offered an amendment to the Rules Committee yesterday and like 
many of my colleagues did not have my amendment made in order. The 
chairman of the committee was present when I testified and said that he 
both read and understood the nature of my amendment. If he understood 
the nature of my amendment then it only stands to reason that it would 
have been made in order.
  My amendment was simple. It would have simply clarified the vague and 
blanket terms currently found in section 6822 of the existing bill. It 
would have stricken the term ``prohibited state-owned shipping 
companies and inserted ``prohibited state-owned companies.'' The 
amendment further defined and clarified the term ``prohibited state-
owned companies'' as a corporation, partnership, or other entity that 
is owned or controlled by a foreign government or foreign state as 
defined in section 1603 of title 28, United States Code--The Foreign 
Sovereign Immunities Act.
  The amendment would have further removed the blanket prohibition 
against conveyance of Department of Defense owned properties to all 
foreign or state owned companies by requiring the President to certify 
that the prohibited foreign or state-owned company or its government is 
a threat to the national security of the United States.
  The amendment maintained the integrity of the base realignment and 
closure process by allowing the decisions for reuse to remain in the 
control of the local government. It was not made in order and I urge my 
colleagues to oppose the rule--and I yield back the balance of my time.
  Mr. MATSUI. Mr. Speaker, I rise in support of the Solomon amendment 
to this rule, House Resolution 169.
  I am outraged and astonished that the rule passed by the committee 
would deny the House an opportunity to speak about the critical issue 
of depot maintenance and repair.
  In its current form, H.R. 1119 contains provisions that would 
severely impact the ability of the Department of Defense to conduct 
competitions for its depot maintenance and repair work. The Air Force 
has designed a model competitive process for repair and maintenance 
activities now performed at McClellan and Kelly Air Force bases. 
Through these competitions, the Air Force will be able to accurately 
determine whether public depots or private contractors can provide the 
best value to the taxpayer in the performance of this work.
  Yet a component of this bill would prevent these competitions from 
moving forward. That proposal has implications far beyond the issue of 
whether Air Force maintenance work is performed in Sacramento, Texas, 
Utah, or elsewhere in the Nation.
  Through these anticompetition provisions, this bill would insert the 
Congress for the first time into the Pentagon's implementation of a 
base realignment and closure commission decision. Further, it would put 
the Congress in the position of dictating to the Pentagon how to manage 
its maintenance and repair activities, regardless of what is sound 
security or fiscal policy.
  That is why my colleagues, Representatives Everett, Sabo, Klug and 
Fazio have sought an amendment to strike the anticompetition provisions 
from the bill. Yet House Resolution 169 would not allow the House to 
consider that important amendment.
  The depot maintenance and repair proposal in this bill represents a 
significant, and absolutely unwise, new direction in defense policy. 
The House ought to have an opportunity to debate this matter. We must 
ensure that the Solomon amendment to the rule is approved so that this 
important debate can occur. I urge my colleagues to support the Solomon 
amendment and to oppose the rule if the amendment does not pass.
  Mr. SOLOMON. Mr. Speaker, I move the previous question on the 
amendment and on the resolution.
  The previous question was ordered.
  The SPEAKER pro tempore. The question is on the amendment offered by 
the gentleman from New York [Mr. Solomon].
  The question was taken; and the Speaker pro tempore announced that 
the ayes appeared to have it.
  Mr. RILEY. 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 329, 
nays 94, not voting 11, as follows:

                             [Roll No. 212]

                               YEAS--329

     Abercrombie
     Ackerman
     Allen
     Andrews
     Archer
     Armey
     Baesler
     Baker
     Baldacci
     Ballenger
     Barcia
     Barr
     Barrett (NE)
     Barrett (WI)
     Barton
     Bass
     Bateman
     Becerra
     Bentsen
     Bereuter
     Berman
     Berry
     Blagojevich
     Bliley
     Blumenauer
     Boehlert
     Boehner
     Bonilla
     Bonior
     Bono
     Borski
     Boswell
     Boucher
     Boyd
     Brady
     Brown (CA)
     Brown (OH)
     Bryant
     Burton
     Buyer
     Callahan
     Calvert
     Camp
     Campbell
     Capps
     Cardin
     Carson
     Castle
     Chabot
     Clay
     Clayton
     Clement
     Clyburn
     Coble
     Combest
     Conyers
     Cooksey
     Costello
     Coyne
     Cramer
     Crane
     Crapo
     Cummings
     Davis (IL)
     Davis (VA)
     DeFazio
     Delahunt
     DeLauro
     DeLay
     Dellums
     Diaz-Balart
     Dickey
     Dicks
     Dingell
     Dixon
     Doggett
     Dooley
     Doolittle
     Doyle
     Dreier
     Duncan
     Dunn
     Edwards
     Ehlers
     Ehrlich
     Emerson
     Engel
     Ensign
     Eshoo
     Etheridge
     Everett
     Farr
     Fattah
     Fawell
     Fazio
     Flake
     Foglietta
     Foley
     Ford
     Fox
     Frank (MA)
     Franks (NJ)
     Frelinghuysen
     Frost
     Furse
     Gallegly
     Ganske
     Gejdenson
     Gephardt
     Gilchrest
     Gillmor
     Gilman
     Gonzalez
     Goode
     Goodlatte
     Gordon
     Goss
     Graham
     Granger
     Greenwood
     Gutierrez
     Hall (OH)
     Hall (TX)
     Hamilton
     Harman
     Hastert
     Hastings (WA)
     Hayworth
     Hefner
     Herger
     Hill
     Hilleary
     Hilliard
     Hinchey
     Hinojosa
     Hobson
     Hoekstra
     Holden
     Hooley
     Horn
     Houghton
     Hoyer
     Hulshof
     Hutchinson
     Hyde
     Inglis
     Jackson (IL)
     Jackson-Lee (TX)
     Jenkins
     John
     Johnson (WI)
     Johnson, E. B.
     Johnson, Sam
     Kanjorski
     Kaptur
     Kasich
     Kelly
     Kennedy (MA)
     Kennedy (RI)
     Kennelly
     Kildee
     Kilpatrick
     Kim
     Kind (WI)
     Kleczka
     Klug
     Knollenberg
     Kolbe
     Kucinich
     LaFalce
     LaHood
     Lampson
     Lantos
     Latham
     LaTourette
     Lazio
     Leach
     Levin
     Lewis (GA)
     Lewis (KY)
     Linder
     Livingston
     LoBiondo
     Lofgren
     Lowey
     Luther
     Maloney (CT)
     Maloney (NY)
     Manton
     Manzullo
     Markey
     Martinez
     Mascara
     Matsui
     McCarthy (MO)
     McCollum
     McCrery
     McDade
     McDermott
     McGovern
     McHale
     McInnis
     McIntosh
     McKinney
     McNulty
     Meehan
     Meek
     Menendez
     Metcalf
     Mica
     Millender-McDonald
     Minge
     Mink
     Moakley
     Molinari
     Mollohan
     Moran (VA)
     Morella
     Murtha
     Nadler
     Neal
     Nethercutt
     Neumann
     Northup
     Nussle
     Oberstar
     Obey
     Olver
     Ortiz
     Owens
     Oxley
     Packard
     Pallone
     Parker
     Pascrell
     Pastor
     Paul
     Paxon
     Payne
     Pelosi
     Peterson (MN)
     Peterson (PA)
     Petri
     Pickett
     Pitts
     Porter
     Portman
     Poshard
     Price (NC)
     Pryce (OH)
     Quinn
     Radanovich
     Rahall
     Ramstad
     Rangel
     Riggs
     Rivers
     Rodriguez
     Rogan
     Rohrabacher
     Ros-Lehtinen
     Rothman
     Roukema
     Roybal-Allard
     Rush
     Sabo
     Sanchez
     Sanders

[[Page H3945]]


     Sandlin
     Sanford
     Sawyer
     Saxton
     Schaefer, Dan
     Schumer
     Scott
     Serrano
     Sessions
     Shays
     Sherman
     Shuster
     Sisisky
     Skaggs
     Skeen
     Skelton
     Slaughter
     Smith (OR)
     Smith (TX)
     Smith, Adam
     Smith, Linda
     Snyder
     Solomon
     Spence
     Spratt
     Stabenow
     Stark
     Stenholm
     Strickland
     Stump
     Stupak
     Tanner
     Tauscher
     Taylor (NC)
     Thompson
     Thornberry
     Thune
     Tierney
     Torres
     Towns
     Traficant
     Turner
     Upton
     Velazquez
     Vento
     Visclosky
     Wamp
     Waters
     Watt (NC)
     Waxman
     Weldon (PA)
     Wexler
     Weygand
     White
     Wicker
     Wise
     Wolf
     Woolsey
     Wynn
     Yates
     Young (FL)

                                NAYS--94

     Aderholt
     Bachus
     Bartlett
     Bilbray
     Bilirakis
     Bishop
     Blunt
     Brown (FL)
     Bunning
     Burr
     Canady
     Cannon
     Chambliss
     Chenoweth
     Christensen
     Coburn
     Collins
     Condit
     Cook
     Cox
     Cubin
     Cunningham
     Danner
     Davis (FL)
     Deal
     Deutsch
     Evans
     Ewing
     Filner
     Forbes
     Fowler
     Gekas
     Gibbons
     Goodling
     Green
     Gutknecht
     Hansen
     Hastings (FL)
     Hefley
     Hostettler
     Hunter
     Jefferson
     Johnson (CT)
     Jones
     King (NY)
     Kingston
     Klink
     Largent
     Lewis (CA)
     Lucas
     McCarthy (NY)
     McHugh
     McIntyre
     McKeon
     Miller (FL)
     Moran (KS)
     Myrick
     Ney
     Norwood
     Pappas
     Pease
     Pickering
     Redmond
     Regula
     Riley
     Roemer
     Rogers
     Royce
     Ryun
     Salmon
     Scarborough
     Schaffer, Bob
     Sensenbrenner
     Shadegg
     Shaw
     Shimkus
     Smith (MI)
     Smith (NJ)
     Snowbarger
     Souder
     Stearns
     Sununu
     Talent
     Tauzin
     Taylor (MS)
     Thomas
     Thurman
     Tiahrt
     Walsh
     Watkins
     Watts (OK)
     Weldon (FL)
     Weller
     Young (AK)

                             NOT VOTING--11

     DeGette
     English
     Istook
     Lipinski
     Miller (CA)
     Pombo
     Pomeroy
     Reyes
     Schiff
     Stokes
     Whitfield

                              {time}  1402

  Mr. GREEN, Mr. LARGENT, Mrs. CHENOWETH, Mr. WELDON of Florida, and 
Mr. SHADEGG changed their vote from ``yea'' to ``nay.''
  Mr. LINDER, Mrs. CLAYTON, Mrs. MEEK of Florida, Ms. EDDIE BERNICE 
JOHNSON of Texas, and Messrs. KOLBE, FOLEY, THOMPSON, and BAESLER 
changed their vote from ``nay'' to ``yea.''
  So the amendment was agreed to.
  The result of the vote was announced as above recorded.
  The SPEAKER pro tempore (Mr. Gilchrest). The question is on the 
resolution, as amended.
  The question was taken; and the Speaker pro tempore announced that 
the ayes appeared to have it.


                             Recorded Vote

  Mrs. FOWLER. Mr. Speaker, I demand a recorded vote.
  A recorded vote was ordered.
  The vote was taken by electronic device, and there were--ayes 322, 
noes 101, not voting 11, as follows:

                             [Roll No.213]

                               AYES--322

     Abercrombie
     Ackerman
     Allen
     Andrews
     Archer
     Armey
     Baker
     Baldacci
     Ballenger
     Barcia
     Barr
     Barrett (NE)
     Barton
     Bass
     Bateman
     Becerra
     Bentsen
     Bereuter
     Berman
     Berry
     Bilbray
     Bilirakis
     Blagojevich
     Bliley
     Boehlert
     Boehner
     Bonilla
     Bonior
     Bono
     Borski
     Boswell
     Boucher
     Boyd
     Brady
     Brown (CA)
     Brown (OH)
     Bryant
     Bunning
     Burr
     Burton
     Buyer
     Callahan
     Calvert
     Camp
     Campbell
     Canady
     Capps
     Carson
     Castle
     Chabot
     Clement
     Coble
     Combest
     Costello
     Coyne
     Cramer
     Crane
     Cubin
     Cummings
     Cunningham
     Danner
     Davis (VA)
     Delahunt
     DeLauro
     DeLay
     Dellums
     Diaz-Balart
     Dickey
     Dicks
     Dixon
     Doggett
     Dooley
     Doolittle
     Doyle
     Dreier
     Duncan
     Dunn
     Edwards
     Ehlers
     Ehrlich
     Emerson
     Engel
     Ensign
     Eshoo
     Everett
     Ewing
     Farr
     Fattah
     Fawell
     Fazio
     Flake
     Foley
     Ford
     Fox
     Frank (MA)
     Franks (NJ)
     Frelinghuysen
     Frost
     Gallegly
     Ganske
     Gejdenson
     Gekas
     Gephardt
     Gilchrest
     Gillmor
     Gilman
     Gonzalez
     Goode
     Goodlatte
     Gordon
     Goss
     Graham
     Granger
     Greenwood
     Gutierrez
     Gutknecht
     Hall (OH)
     Hamilton
     Harman
     Hastert
     Hastings (WA)
     Hayworth
     Hefley
     Herger
     Hill
     Hilleary
     Hinchey
     Hinojosa
     Hobson
     Hoekstra
     Holden
     Hooley
     Horn
     Houghton
     Hulshof
     Hunter
     Hutchinson
     Hyde
     Inglis
     Jackson (IL)
     Jefferson
     Jenkins
     John
     Johnson (WI)
     Johnson, E.B.
     Johnson, Sam
     Kanjorski
     Kaptur
     Kasich
     Kelly
     Kennedy (MA)
     Kennedy (RI)
     Kennelly
     Kildee
     Kilpatrick
     Kim
     Kind (WI)
     King (NY)
     Kingston
     Kleczka
     Klink
     Knollenberg
     Kolbe
     Kucinich
     LaFalce
     LaHood
     Lampson
     Lantos
     Latham
     LaTourette
     Lazio
     Leach
     Levin
     Lewis (CA)
     Lewis (KY)
     Linder
     Livingston
     LoBiondo
     Lowey
     Luther
     Maloney (CT)
     Manton
     Manzullo
     Martinez
     Mascara
     Matsui
     McCarthy (MO)
     McCollum
     McCrery
     McDade
     McGovern
     McHale
     McHugh
     McInnis
     McIntosh
     McKinney
     McNulty
     Meehan
     Meek
     Menendez
     Metcalf
     Mica
     Miller (FL)
     Minge
     Mink
     Moakley
     Molinari
     Mollohan
     Morella
     Murtha
     Neal
     Nethercutt
     Neumann
     Ney
     Northup
     Nussle
     Oberstar
     Obey
     Olver
     Owens
     Oxley
     Packard
     Pappas
     Parker
     Pascrell
     Pastor
     Paul
     Paxon
     Pease
     Pelosi
     Peterson (MN)
     Peterson (PA)
     Petri
     Pickering
     Pitts
     Porter
     Portman
     Poshard
     Price (NC)
     Pryce (OH)
     Quinn
     Radanovich
     Rahall
     Ramstad
     Redmond
     Regula
     Reyes
     Riggs
     Rivers
     Rodriguez
     Rogan
     Rogers
     Ros-Lehtinen
     Rothman
     Roukema
     Roybal-Allard
     Royce
     Ryun
     Sabo
     Sanchez
     Sanford
     Sawyer
     Saxton
     Scarborough
     Schaefer, Dan
     Schaffer, Bob
     Schumer
     Scott
     Serrano
     Sessions
     Shadegg
     Shays
     Sherman
     Shuster
     Skaggs
     Skeen
     Skelton
     Slaughter
     Smith (MI)
     Smith (NJ)
     Smith (OR)
     Smith (TX)
     Smith, Adam
     Smith, Linda
     Snyder
     Solomon
     Souder
     Spence
     Spratt
     Stabenow
     Stark
     Stenholm
     Strickland
     Stump
     Stupak
     Tanner
     Tauscher
     Tauzin
     Taylor (NC)
     Thomas
     Thornberry
     Thune
     Tierney
     Torres
     Traficant
     Turner
     Upton
     Velazquez
     Visclosky
     Walsh
     Wamp
     Watt (NC)
     Waxman
     Weldon (FL)
     Weldon (PA)
     Wexler
     Weygand
     Wicker
     Wise
     Wolf
     Woolsey
     Young (FL)

                               NOES--101

     Aderholt
     Bachus
     Baesler
     Barrett (WI)
     Bartlett
     Bishop
     Blumenauer
     Blunt
     Brown (FL)
     Cannon
     Cardin
     Chambliss
     Chenoweth
     Christensen
     Clay
     Clayton
     Clyburn
     Coburn
     Collins
     Condit
     Conyers
     Cook
     Cooksey
     Cox
     Crapo
     Davis (FL)
     Davis (IL)
     Deal
     DeFazio
     Deutsch
     Dingell
     Etheridge
     Evans
     Filner
     Forbes
     Fowler
     Furse
     Gibbons
     Goodling
     Green
     Hall (TX)
     Hansen
     Hastings (FL)
     Hefner
     Hilliard
     Hostettler
     Hoyer
     Jackson-Lee (TX)
     Johnson (CT)
     Jones
     Klug
     Largent
     Lewis (GA)
     Lofgren
     Lucas
     Maloney (NY)
     Markey
     McCarthy (NY)
     McDermott
     McIntyre
     McKeon
     Millender-McDonald
     Moran (KS)
     Moran (VA)
     Myrick
     Nadler
     Norwood
     Ortiz
     Pallone
     Payne
     Pickett
     Rangel
     Riley
     Roemer
     Rohrabacher
     Rush
     Salmon
     Sanders
     Sandlin
     Sensenbrenner
     Shaw
     Shimkus
     Sisisky
     Snowbarger
     Stearns
     Sununu
     Talent
     Taylor (MS)
     Thompson
     Thurman
     Tiahrt
     Towns
     Vento
     Waters
     Watkins
     Watts (OK)
     Weller
     White
     Wynn
     Yates
     Young (AK)

                             NOT VOTING--11

     DeGette
     English
     Foglietta
     Istook
     Lipinski
     Miller (CA)
     Pombo
     Pomeroy
     Schiff
     Stokes
     Whitfield

                              {time}  1421

  Ms. MILLENDER-McDONALD, Mr. HALL of Texas and Mr. SISISKY changed 
their vote from ``aye'' to ``no.''
  So the resolution, as amended, was agreed to.
  The result of the vote was announced as above recorded.
  A motion to reconsider was laid on the table.
  The SPEAKER pro tempore (Mr. Gilchrest). Pursuant to House Resolution 
169, House Resolutions 161, 162 and 165 are laid on the table.

                          ____________________