[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.
____________________