[Congressional Record Volume 144, Number 65 (Wednesday, May 20, 1998)]
[House]
[Pages H3495-H3505]
From the Congressional Record Online through the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]




        NATIONAL DEFENSE AUTHORIZATION ACT FOR FISCAL YEAR 1999

  Mr. SOLOMON. Mr. Speaker, by direction of the Committee on Rules, I 
call up House Resolution 441 and ask for its immediate consideration.
  The Clerk read the resolution, as follows:

                              H. Res. 441

       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 further 
     consideration of the bill (H.R. 3616) to authorize 
     appropriations for fiscal year 1999 for military activities 
     of the Department of Defense, to prescribe military personnel 
     strengths for fiscal year 1999, and for other purposes. No 
     further general debate shall be in order. 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 10 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).
       (d) All points of order against amendments printed in the 
     report of the Committee on Rules or amendments en bloc 
     described in section 3 of this resolution are waived.
       (e)(1) Consideration of the amendments in part A 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 the policy of the United States with 
     respect to the People's Republic of China and shall not 
     exceed two hours equally divided and controlled by the 
     chairman and ranking minority member of the Committee on 
     National Security.
       (2) Consideration of the amendments in part C 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 the assignment of members of the armed forces to 
     assist in border control and shall not exceed 30 minutes 
     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 D of the report of the Committee on Rules not earlier 
     disposed of 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 20 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 amendments 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 
     amendments; 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 15 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.

  The SPEAKER pro tempore (Mr. Shaw). The gentleman from New York (Mr. 
Solomon) is recognized for 1 hour.
  Mr. SOLOMON. Mr. Speaker, for the purposes of debate only, I yield 30 
minutes to the gentleman from Texas (Mr. Frost), a very strong 
supporter of our military, pending which I would yield myself such time 
as I might consume. Mr. Speaker, during consideration of

[[Page H3496]]

this resolution, all time yielded is for debate purposes only.
  Mr. Speaker, this resolution provides for further consideration of 
H.R. 3616, the National Defense Authorization Act For Fiscal Year 1999, 
under a structured rule. It is one of the most important bills that 
comes before this House every year because it provides for funding for 
our military and for our national defense and our strategic interests 
around the world.
  The rule provides that no further general debate shall be in order 
since we completed that last night.
  As you know, Mr. Speaker, this rule provides for consideration of the 
committee amendment in the nature of a substitute now printed in the 
bill and as an original bill for the purposes of amendment which shall 
be considered as read.
  The rule waives all points of order against the amendment in the 
nature of a substitute. Mr. Speaker, as is typical for this bill, the 
rule makes in order only those amendments printed in the Committee on 
Rules report and the amendments en bloc described in section 3 of this 
resolution, which Members all have on their tables before them.
  The rule provides that, except as specified in section 5 of this 
resolution, amendments will be considered only in the order specified 
in the report. They 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.
  Except as otherwise provided in the report, amendments shall be 
debatable for 10 minutes equally divided between a proponent and an 
opponent. Amendments are not amendable. All points of order against the 
amendments are waived.
  The rule also provides for an additional 2 hours of general debate on 
United States policy towards communist China, which shall precede 
consideration of the four amendments in part A of the Committee on 
Rules report that deal with missile technology.
  The rule also provides for an additional 30 minutes of general debate 
on the subject of placing our armed forces on the border, which shall 
precede the amendment offered by the gentleman from Ohio (Mr. 
Traficant) and the gentleman from Texas (Mr. Reyes) printed in part C 
of the report.
  In addition, this rule allows for extensive debate time on several 
important and controversial issues. We have set aside special times for 
these issues, such as abortion at military installations overseas; the 
global warming treaty; the prospect of a U.N. standing army, which we 
should oppose with every bit of strength we have; and medical benefits 
for our military retirees.
  The rule authorizes the Chairman of the Committee on National 
Security or his designee to offer amendments en bloc consisting of 
amendments in part D of this report. En bloc amendments shall be 
debatable for 20 minutes each and shall not be subject to amendment.
  Finally, the rule provides for one motion to recommit with or without 
instructions.
  Mr. Speaker, this kind of structured rule is typical for the defense 
authorization bill, as Members well know.
  The Committee on Rules has gone to great lengths to ensure this rule 
has met the concerns of as many Members as possible. Exactly 100 
amendments were filed with the committee, and we have made half of them 
in order. Of the amendments ruled in order, the ratio of amendments by 
the minority is nearly exactly the same as the ratio of minority 
amendments filed with the committee.
  Thus, I believe this is a fair rule and a rule that deserves the 
support of all Members of this body so we can get on to the 
consideration of the important bill.
  Mr. Speaker, I want to commend two Members of this body. One is the 
chairman of the Committee on National Security. He is the gentleman 
from South Carolina (Mr. Spence). Mr. Speaker, the gentleman from South 
Carolina (Mr. Spence) has been here even longer than I have. I have 
been here for 20 years. But the gentleman is one of the truly 
outstanding and respected Members of this body. What the gentleman has 
done for our military preparedness over all those years deserves 
special commendation.
  The gentleman from South Carolina has a counterpart on the Democrat 
side in the minority, the gentleman from Missouri (Mr. Skelton). He, 
too, has been an outstanding and respected Member of the Committee on 
National Security. I just want to commend both of them for having 
brought this bill to the floor.
  We have increased the dollar request of the President of the United 
States so that we can at least try to maintain an adequate military. I 
do not have to tell most of you that we, today, because of the reduced 
spending on military, we are beginning to go back to the 1970s when our 
military was in deplorable condition; when, just to dramatize that, if 
you recall back in 1979 our hostages had been held. American hostages 
had been held in Teheran and Haran.
  President Carter at the time had ordered our military to try to 
undertake a rescue mission. We had to cannibalize 10 helicopter 
gunships just to get five that would work. That is how bad our military 
was in, the condition of it at that time. Do you know that four out of 
the five of those helicopters, even after we did cannibalize the others 
to get them to work, failed, and so did that rescue mission. It was a 
disgrace what was happening to our ability to defend our interests 
around the world.

                              {time}  1045

  In those days as well, because the military personnel who had 
enlisted and wanted an honorable career in the military, they knew that 
because of the reduced funding that they did not have a career, that 
they could not stay in the military, and, consequently they were 
leaving in droves. This was not only noncommissioned officers that were 
needed with their technical ability, but commissioned officers as well.
  Mr. Speaker, I would say to Members, go to your recruiters back in 
your districts, and I want you to talk to the Air Force, the Navy, the 
Army, the Marine Corps, and they will tell you that they are no longer 
getting the interest of a cross-section of America to serve in our 
military today, because they are worried they could not have a career 
there if they were to enlist.
  If you look at your applicants to your military academies, I know in 
my district we used to have over 100 that would apply for the four 
appointments that I have each year, and today that has drooped from 
over 100 down to about 25 or 30. That is because they know that they 
cannot depend on a career in the military.
  That is what is happening, and that is why we need to vote on this 
bill today, because it is certainly a step in the right direction for 
providing adequate procurement, adequate research and development and 
adequate pay and benefits and housing for our military personnel.
  Again, I want to thank both the gentleman from Missouri (Mr. 
Skelton), the ranking member. I was just praising the gentleman before 
he came on the floor, along with my good friend, the gentleman from 
South Carolina (Chairman Spence).
  Mr. Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.
  Mr. FROST. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume.
  Mr. Speaker, today our Nation is strong and free. We owe much of our 
strength and freedom to the men and women in uniform who have 
throughout the history of our great country been willing to stand ready 
to defend our country and our way of life. We should be proud of our 
military services and the difficult tasks we as a country have asked 
them to perform for us.
  In asking so much of them, the Congress must in turn assure each and 
every soldier, sailor, airman and marine, from the four-star general to 
the newest recruit, that the Congress will provide them with the means 
to carry out their difficult mission.
  It is our responsibility, our duty really, to examine the state of 
our national defenses each year. In doing so, we often find 
shortcomings in our ability to adequately fund the programs, missions 
and operations of the military. But it is important to remember that in 
today's world, Federal dollars are finite, and, given the fiscal 
restraints that the Congress has imposed upon itself in the budget 
agreement that has led us to a balanced budget, the Committee on 
National Security has done an admirable job in balancing the needs and 
imperatives of our far-flung security forces.

[[Page H3497]]

  H.R. 3616 keeps the promise of our budget agreement, and, in doing 
so, strives to fulfill our responsibilities to the armed services. To 
be sure, there is not enough money to do everything we should, but this 
bill balances the hardware needs of all branches of the military, 
while, at the same time, trying to assure that the human needs of our 
military and their families are addressed.
  Mr. Speaker, I support H.R. 3616. I am pleased that the Committee on 
National Security has continued its commitment to the development of 
the next generation of tactical fighter by providing $1.6 billion in 
research and development funding for the F-22 Raptor. As we approach 
the 21st Century, the development of this next-generation fighter will 
be an increasingly important component in our ability to defend our 
borders and our troops, no matter where they may be deployed. In 
addition, the bill contains $595 million for two test F-22s and $190 
million for advanced procurement of six low-rate initial production 
aircraft in fiscal year 2000.
  The Committee on National Security has continued to show its strong 
commitment to the production of the V-22 Osprey tiltroter aircraft, a 
medium lift capability aircraft specifically designed for Marine Corps 
and Special Operations Forces assaults.
  H.R. 3616 provides $735 million for the production of eight aircraft 
in fiscal year 1999, and an additional $54 million for advanced 
procurement. The committee has also endorsed an increase of production 
to 30 aircraft per year by the year 2004, which is also supported by 
the findings of the recent Quadrennial Defense Review.
  In addition, Mr. Speaker, the Committee on National Security has 
signalled its ongoing support for the B-2 Stealth Bomber program by 
providing $276 million for B-2 post-production support. These funds 
will enhance the operational effectiveness of the current B-2 fleet, 
while both the Defense Department and the Congress examine the needs of 
the Air Force in a long-term bomber force structure plan. The Committee 
on National Security has wisely included a provision in this bill which 
directs the Secretary of the Air Force to prepare such a long-range 
plan and submit it to Congress by next March 1st.
  Mr. Speaker, the Committee on Rules has reported a rule which makes 
in order a wide variety of amendments to this vital legislation. Those 
amendments range from transfers of missile-related technologies to 
foreign governments, including China, to using military forces to 
patrol our borders, to capping U.S. contributions to NATO expansion.
  However, the committee chose not to make in order a very significant 
amendment to a controversial section of the reported Committee on 
National Security bill. As Members know, last year's defense 
authorization created a Federal advisory committee on gender integrated 
training, now commonly known as the Kassebaum-Baker panel.
  In March, former Senator Kassebaum-Baker's panel reported 
recommendations that all basic training and housing be segregated by 
gender. The committee bill adopts this recommendation by requiring each 
of the military services to assign male and female recruits to separate 
units during basic training, and further requires each of the services 
to house male and female recruits in separate buildings beginning on 
April 15th of next year.
  While the bill does provide for some waiver of this last requirement 
because of facility limitations at certain installations, this 
requirement sets in motion a procedure which will drastically change 
basic training for all recruits in the Army, Navy and Air Force. The 
Marine Corps, of course, is currently the only branch of the service 
which currently separates male and female recruits during basic 
training.
  Mr. Speaker, the branch chiefs of the Army, Navy and Air Force have 
indicated they do not support the recommendations of the Kassebaum-
Baker panel. In spite of their opposition to these recommendations, the 
Committee on Rules did not provide the opportunity to fully debate this 
issue. An amendment was proposed by the gentlewoman from New York (Mrs. 
Maloney) which would have stricken these provisions from the bill, but, 
because the Committee on Rules did not make it in order, the House has 
been denied the opportunity to examine this issue. This is a major 
shortcoming of this rule, Mr. Speaker.
  The committee did not make in order several other worthy amendments 
offered by Democratic Members. But in spite of the fact the House will 
not be able to debate these worthy issues, I will support the rule. I 
support it because it is necessary to move this authorization through 
the legislative process.
  We may do little else of great value in the 105th Congress, but, at 
the very least, we should assure the passage of legislation which 
serves the needs of our military and the interests of our national 
security.
  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 South Carolina (Mr. Spence), the gentleman I was heaping 
praise on a few minutes ago, the chairman of the Committee on National 
Security.
  Mr. SPENCE. Mr. Speaker, I take this time really to return the 
compliment. The gentleman from New York (Mr. Solomon) has been one of 
the biggest defenders of our military in this Congress.
  Mr. Speaker, I have been here for 28 years. I have seen a lot of 
people come and go. In the administrations over the years and in 
Congress, we have never had a person who is a bigger defender of our 
military than the gentleman from New York (Jerry Solomon). He has made 
it possible for us to do a lot of things we could not have done 
otherwise in trying to revitalize our military, which needs very badly 
to be revitalized.
  I want to personally thank the gentleman for all the help he has been 
to me and our committee as chairman of the Committee on Rules in 
helping us overall these years.
  Mr. FROST. Mr. Speaker, I yield five minutes to the gentleman from 
Mississippi (Mr. Taylor).
  Mr. TAYLOR of Mississippi. Mr. Speaker, I am going to ask my 
colleagues to defeat the previous question so that this body may vote 
on something I think is very important, and that is a measure that 
would require all Department of Defense employees to be subject to 
random drug testing.
  Mr. Speaker, I have been to Latin America on a number of occasion. 
Most recently in February I went to Colombia, to towns like Neiva, to 
San Jose, where American special forces are training Colombian Lanceros 
in what is a very real war on drugs.
  The unit that we visited one week was annihilated the next. Out of 
125 Colombian soldiers that went out, 18 returned. The rest were killed 
or captured.
  When you go to Colombia, you do not drive around, you have to fly. 
The reason you have to fly from place to place is that the guerrillas 
control the countryside. So everywhere we went was either on a 
Colombian National Police Huey, or a Drug Enforcement Agency plane. 
That is how real the war on drugs is.
  But we have a tremendous disconnect in our country. You see, we are 
asking American soldiers as we speak to get shot at. We are asking the 
Americans who fly the crop dusters that are trying to eradicate the 
coca fields and the poppy fields that are being shot at, and they are 
shot down periodically. We have American soldiers in Iquitos, Peru, and 
American sailors, American Seals, training the Peruvians in riverine 
operations, mostly on drugs coming out of Colombia by way of the 
Amazon.
  But this body will not even ask the technicians and the people who 
work for our Department of Defense, who are paid by our tax dollars, to 
take a drug test to see if they are on our team or on their team.
  I offered this amendment for two years in a row. Last year the 
Committee on Rules, in what I thought was a particularly cowardly 
action, did not even vote on it. This year they voted it down in a 
straight party line vote.
  So every Republican who goes home and tells you he is tough on drugs, 
privately we know, in looking at that room in the Committee on Rules, 
voted against it.
  All I am asking for is 15 minutes worth of debate on each side and a 
vote, up or down. Until I get it, I will

[[Page H3498]]

continue to ask for motions to adjourn before this House.
  So I think the Committee on Rules and my fellow Members can make a 
choice: We can vote on it today, or we can vote on it Sunday, but we 
will vote on this. Because I do not think people who work for our 
Nation ought to take their Federal paycheck and buy drugs with it. I 
think we ought to have the confidence that those people who are working 
on our war on drugs are on our team.
  I do not think it is asking a lot for the ranking Democrat on the 
Subcommittee on Personnel of the House Committee on National Security 
to have an amendment made in order that deals with the personnel who 
work for our Department of Defense.
  So, Mr. Speaker, at the proper time I would hope that our ranking 
member, the gentleman from Texas (Mr. Frost) would recognize me for a 
motion to defeat the previous question. But also I want to assure my 
colleagues that if the previous question is not defeated and if this 
amendment is not made in order, we in all probability will be here 
Saturday or Sunday. I have already canceled my plans. So the question 
for my fellow Members is, do you want to cancel yours?
  Mr. SOLOMON. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume.
  Mr. Speaker, I sort of hesitate to get up to respond to my good 
friend, the gentleman from Mississippi (Mr. Taylor). I guess I have a 
reputation of having a short temper sometimes, and I do not want to do 
that because he is a respected Member of this body.
  I just want, first of all, to let it be known that in my 20 years 
here in this body I have offered literally dozens of amendments dealing 
with the war on drugs, including random drug testing and mandatory drug 
testing of Federal employees throughout this government.
  When Ronald Reagan took office, he was somewhat of a libertarian, and 
he was not sold on the idea of random drug testing in our military. But 
we did a study at that time and we found out that back in the mid-
eighties, the early eighties, that 25 percent of our military personnel 
admitted to using drugs of some kind. Twenty-five percent. When you 
look at that, you said how could they be effective if, God forbid, they 
had to go into battle and jeopardize the other 75 percent? So Ronald 
Reagan agreed by executive order to implement random drug testing of 
every single one of our military. That meant every buck private, right 
up to every general.
  Do you know what happened over the succeeding four years? Just the 
threat of the random drug testing dropped the use of drugs by our 
military personnel from 25 percent down to 4 percent. Four percent. Can 
you imagine that? And they became much more effective.
  Would it not be great if we could implement that throughout the 
entire Federal Government, as the gentleman from Mississippi (Mr. 
Taylor) wants to do with the civilian personnel in the military? Would 
it not be great if we could do it with all the Department of 
Transportation and the IRS and everybody else? Then would it not be 
great if we could do it with State governments, if State governments 
would implement the same kind of random drug testing, and if local 
governments, the counties and towns and cities and villages would do 
the same thing?

                              {time}  1100

  Then, would it not be great if our Fortune 500 companies, most of 
which now do random drug tests on their employees as a condition of 
employment, would that not be great? Think what would happen if we 
reduced the use of drugs by 80 percent of the American people. That 
would knock the price right out from under it, but we would have no 
more problem with drugs coming into this country, because there would 
not be any value to them because there would be so few users.
  When we look at the Rand study not too many years ago, there were 2 
startling things in there that I just was shocked to see, and one was 
that 75 percent of all of the crime against women and children in 
America today is drug-related. Think what that would do if we reduced 
the use of drugs by 80 percent throughout this country by American 
citizens.
  Then, what was even more shocking was, and I represent an area of 
middle class America in the Hudson Valley, the Catskills on one end, 
the Adirondacks on the other, but I was shocked to find out that some 
of my constituents, 75 percent of the illegal drug use in America 
today, was used by recreational weekend drug users; in other words, 
people, middle class or upper middle class who were driving into the 
cities, buying marijuana, buying cocaine and then using it 
recreationally on the weekend thinking that it was not going to be any 
problem. I said, my God, if we could drug test all of those people, the 
threat of losing their jobs, they would stop using these recreational 
drugs on the weekend.
  So I would say to the gentleman, I support his amendment. We were 
going to wait until mid-June, when the gentleman from Texas (Mr. 
Barton) and myself would bring to this floor a resolution that would 
change the Rules of the House and it would then begin to random drug 
test every single Member of this body; that means me and every other 
Member. Then, in addition, we would drug test all employees as a 
condition of employment.
  Now, of course, I am told that that is probably unconstitutional and 
so is the testing of Members. Nevertheless, the resolution we will 
bring to this floor will random drug test every Member, it will random 
drug test every employee of the House. There are thousands of them, 
when we take into consideration all of the branches of our House of 
Representatives. We would then test all new hires, in other words, who 
had suspicion, in other words, of drugs. We would then random drug test 
all of the security and public safety, and then finally, we would test 
any House employee who has access to the floor of this body.
  Now, if my colleagues notice, I have gone from the severest to the 
least, and in this bill we will have a separation clause that says that 
any one of these, if testing Members is unconstitutional, then the 
other 5 classes stand. If testing all employees as a condition of 
employment, if that is found unconstitutional, then the other 3 stand.
  Now, that is what we are going to bring on the floor along with a lot 
of other legislation.
  Mr. TAYLOR of Mississippi. Mr. Speaker, will the gentleman yield?
  Mr. SOLOMON. I yield to the gentleman from Mississippi.
  Mr. TAYLOR of Mississippi. Mr. Speaker, I would say to the gentleman, 
I am going to vote for what the gentleman is trying to do later, but 
this is today. I am sure when we left last fall, Sonny Bono thought he 
would be here this spring, but he is not, and I regret that.
  We are given an opportunity today on a bill that we know the Senate 
has to vote on. This is the defense authorization bill for the Nation, 
and without it, no ships, no planes, no helicopters, the troops do not 
get a pay raise, nothing happens in the Department of Defense unless 
this bill becomes law.
  On the contrary, what the gentleman from New York is talking about 
the Senate never has to vote on, and anyone who follows Washington 
knows that more often than not, anything controversial, they simply 
choose not to vote on it.
  So I would say to the gentleman, I would hope, if he is gentleman 
enough to listen, I would hope since the gentleman is in agreement with 
what I am trying to do for this portion of the government that he would 
accept my efforts along the lines of the previous question, and we will 
know for certainty, for at least this portion, for the most important 
thing our Nation does, which is to defend the Nation, that we will have 
random drug testing for all Department of Defense employees.
  Mr. SOLOMON. Mr. Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.
  Mr. FROST. Mr. Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from 
Missouri (Mr. Skelton).
  Mr. SKELTON. Mr. Speaker, I am not exactly clear. A moment ago I 
heard the gentleman from New York (Mr. Solomon) say he would support 
the gentleman's amendment. By country interpretation, from a country 
lawyer in Missouri, that means that it will be made in order; is that 
correct?
  Mr. SOLOMON. Mr. Speaker, will the gentleman yield?
  Mr. SKELTON. I yield to the gentleman from New York.
  Mr. SOLOMON. Mr. Speaker, I would say to the gentleman that he is one 
of

[[Page H3499]]

the men that I most respect in this body, and the gentleman is not just 
a country lawyer, the gentleman is one of the most astute Members of 
this body.
  If the gentleman would like to have the Taylor amendment made in 
order.
  Mr. SKELTON. I would, Mr. Speaker.
  Mr. SOLOMON. Mr. Speaker, we have a very delicate balance of the 
number of Republican and Democrat amendments that were made in order; 
we tried to maintain that balance.
  At the appropriate time, if the gentleman is asking me to make an 
exception and make the Taylor amendment in order.
  Mr. SKELTON. Yes, Mr. Speaker.
  Mr. SOLOMON. I would, during this debate, I would ask unanimous 
consent at the appropriate time to make the Taylor amendment in order, 
and also to make then a Terry Everett of Alabama amendment in order, 
modified, and that will sort of keep, I guess, our balance in shape. 
Would that be all right with the gentleman?
  Mr. SKELTON. Yes, Mr. Speaker. I thank the gentleman so much for his 
courtesy.
  Mr. SOLOMON. Mr. Speaker, at the appropriate time, I would make the 
unanimous consent statement.
  Mr. Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.
  Mr. FROST. Mr. Speaker, I yield 5 minutes to the gentleman from 
Massachusetts (Mr. Frank).
  Mr. FRANK of Massachusetts. Mr. Speaker, Members should not think 
that there will not be a vote now on the previous question, because I 
have no choice but to emulate my colleague, the gentleman from 
Mississippi (Mr. Taylor). The gentleman threatened to vote on the 
previous question and he got his amendment made in order. I have some 
amendments I would like made in order and I do not want to be open to 
the inference that I am less committed to mine than he to his, so I now 
will announce that I will be moving for a rollcall on the previous 
question.
  The rule is a disgrace. I understand the desire of the Republican 
leadership to make something out of the China issue. It ought to be 
fully debated, but it should not come at the expense of this House 
debating some of the most important public policy questions we face. 
Bosnia, and I did not know that the principle was equal Democrat and 
Republican amendments. That seems to be rather an odd way to make 
public policy, but I do not threaten that, because the amendments I 
want made in order are totally bipartisan.
  I have an amendment sponsored by myself and the gentleman from 
Connecticut (Mr. Shays) to put a freeze on defense spending. That was 
not made in order. Let us be very clear. Defense spending represents a 
large chunk of what we have said we will spend. Not a single amendment 
is made in order that would reduce the budget.
  This House will not be given a chance to vote on whether or not the 
budget ought to be reduced. That is simply a degradation of the 
democratic process and inappropriate. Members may want to vote to keep 
this spending level up, particularly since we are in a zero sub 
situation, and Members who have talked about how committed they are to 
spending for the elderly and for the environment and for housing and 
for crime control will be diminishing our ability to do that if they 
vote for this bill. Not to allow even a chance to vote on a freeze 
seems to me wholly disrespectful of the democratic process.
  Similarly, Bosnia. I do not know how often I have heard Members on 
the other side complain about Bosnia and the troops in Bosnia. Why, 
then, does the Republican leadership refuse to allow this House to vote 
on an amendment sponsored by 3 Democrats and 3 Republicans to compel 
withdrawal of the troops from Bosnia by December 31?
  According to the administration, it costs us $2 billion a year 
incrementally to keep the troops in Bosnia. These amendments go 
together. We could cut out the troops in Bosnia and save money. We 
could cut out the American troops and let the Europeans do what they 
ought to do and use that money for other purposes. It simply does not 
wash for Members on the other side to say, the President has 
unilaterally overcommitted us. The President has overextended us; we 
wish the troops were not in Bosnia, and then frustrate an effort to let 
the membership vote. What possible justification can there be for not 
letting this membership vote on a bipartisan amendment as to whether or 
not the troops stay in Bosnia?
  Mr. SOLOMON. Mr. Speaker, will the gentleman yield?
  Mr. FRANK of Massachusetts. I yield to the gentleman from New York.
  Mr. SOLOMON. Mr. Speaker, the gentleman was critical of my trying to 
have a fair balance of amendments, and let me just say to my good 
friend, and he is a good friend, that I served for 16 years in the 
minority. For many years we felt that we were being discriminated 
against by the majority, and the gentleman knows I have done everything 
in my power as the chairman of the Committee on Rules to try to be as 
fair as possible.
  Mr. FRANK of Massachusetts. Mr. Speaker, reclaiming my time, I 
understand that; the gentleman has done what was in his power and my 
criticism is not aimed at the gentleman, but at the Republican 
leadership, which has somehow decided that, I don't know, it may be 
that they do not want to detract attention from the China issue, and 
the China issue deserves full debate, but how can the Republican 
leadership justify not letting this House vote on whether or not the 
troops stay in Bosnia?
  I will say this: If we vote for the previous question on the rollcall 
I will ask for and my colleagues vote for this rule and they vote for 
this bill, they will have refused the option to vote on Bosnia. So I 
will ask Members, have the intellectual consistency, if they vote down 
the line to keep us from debating Bosnia, not to complain about the 
troops being in Bosnia. There ought to be a basic rule that Members are 
enjoined from complaining about circumstances which they brought about.
  So let us now face the choice. A vote for the previous question, a 
vote for the rule, a vote for the bill, my colleagues will have given 
their okay to the troops staying in Bosnia ad infinitum. They are going 
to be pulled out shortly after the dome comes off this building as long 
as the current policy of the administration is in effect, and I think 
Europeans ought to be made to step up to the plate.
  I will give Members a chance, if they will take it, to vote on 
whether or not we ought to keep the troops in Bosnia at a $2 billion a 
year cost. I think that is bad public policy. That is debatable. What 
is not debatable is that the United States House of Representatives, 
where many Members have complained about the troops being in Bosnia, 
cannot even vote on the subject. That ought not to happen. Neither 
should we have a situation where Members are not allowed even to vote 
on whether or not we ought to reduce military spending.
  So, Mr. Speaker, I hope that Members, particularly those who have 
talked about the troops in Bosnia being a problem, who vote against the 
previous question, I will then offer that balanced bipartisan 
amendment, and we can go forward with our business.
  Mr. SOLOMON. Mr. Speaker, could I inquire as to the time remaining on 
both sides of the aisle.
  The SPEAKER pro tempore (Mr. Shaw). Each side has 14 minutes 
remaining.
  Mr. SOLOMON. Mr. Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.
  Mr. FROST. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume.
  For the record, there were 50 amendments made in order, 15 of those 
are Democratic amendments, and 35 of those are Republican amendments, 
not exactly a balance. The chairman of the committee was trying to 
suggest that there was some sort of an equal division; there was not an 
equal division of amendments, Mr. Chairman. There were 15 Democratic 
amendments out of the 50 made in order, if we want to discuss the 
merits of the individual amendments as to whether they should have been 
made in order.
  Mr. Speaker, I yield 4 minutes to the gentlewoman from New York (Mrs. 
Maloney).
  Mrs. MALONEY of New York. Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentleman for 
yielding me this time.
  Mr. Speaker, first I would like to thank the gentleman from South 
Carolina (Mr. Spence), the chairman of the committee, and the gentleman 
from Missouri (Mr. Skelton), the ranking member, for allowing one of my 
amendments to be in order.

[[Page H3500]]

  This legislation will tighten a loophole in the law regarding 
military retirement pensions. I was very disappointed to see a soldier 
who was recently convicted of a felony go unpunished. Certainly, any 
soldier who has served honorably deserves a full pension, but any 
soldier who has been demoted due to the commission of a crime should 
not be entitled to retire based upon the highest rank served.
  Unfortunately, this defense authorization bill also includes a 
provision that no one wants. I am very disappointed in the Committee on 
Rules for not allowing a vote on gender segregation during basic 
training in all branches of the Armed Services.
  My amendment to strike this language was dismissed by the Committee 
on Rules. The Army, the Navy, the Air Force have all come out against 
gender segregation, because they know men and women must train as they 
fight. Separating them creates an atmosphere of distrust and may affect 
military readiness. Just as soldiers from diverse ethnic and social 
backgrounds must learn to become a cohesive group, so must men and 
women.
  Separate and secure quarters are achieved without placing unit 
members in different buildings. Segregating the sexes will cost the 
Army $159 million, according to the Department of Defense. Why should 
we spend this kind of money to create a situation that no one wants?

                              {time}  1115

  Secretary Cohen, former chairman of the Joint Chiefs, General 
Shalikashvili, all came out against separating the sexes.
  Sexual misconduct issues are not a result of training policy, but a 
manifestation of poor leadership. We cannot cure a social problem with 
a logistical solution. Further isolating women will not solve the 
problem. If nothing else, it will make the problem worse. It is not an 
issue of segregation or separation, it is about respect and leadership.
  Mr. Speaker, as we speak here on the floor today, men and women are 
defending our country in all parts of the world. They are fighting 
together. In some parts of Bosnia they are living together in the same 
tents. It is being done with respect and leadership.
  Segregating men and women in the military amounts to giving women 
their marching orders back into the dark ages. Women are defending this 
country. We should defend their right to be treated equally in the 
military. I urge a vote against the rule on this issue alone, and on 
the issues raised by the gentleman from Massachusetts (Mr. Barney 
Frank).


           Modification to Resolution Offered by Mr. Solomon

  Mr. SOLOMON. Mr. Speaker, I ask unanimous consent that 
notwithstanding any other provision of the pending resolution, that the 
Taylor and the Everett amendments that I have placed at the desk shall 
be deemed to have been included as the last amendments printed in part 
D of the report of the Committee on Rules accompanying the resolution.
  The SPEAKER pro tempore (Mr. Shaw). The Clerk will report the 
amendments.
  The Clerk read as follows:

       Amendment to be offered by Mr. Taylor of Mississippi:
       At the end of subtitle C of title X (page 227, after line 
     14), insert the following new section:

     SEC. 1023. RANDOM DRUG TESTING OF DEPARTMENT OF DEFENSE 
                   EMPLOYEES.

       (a) Expansion of Existing Program.--(1) Chapter 81 of title 
     10, United States Code, is amended by inserting after section 
     1581 the following new section:

     ``Sec. 1582. Random testing of employees for use of illegal 
       drugs

       ``(a) Program Required.--The Secretary of Defense shall 
     expand the drug testing program required for civilian 
     employees of the Department of Defense by Executive Order 
     12564 (51 Fed. Reg. 32889; September 15, 1986) to include the 
     random testing on a controlled and monitored basis of all 
     such employees for the use of illegal drugs.
       ``(b) Testing Procedures and Personnel Actions.--The 
     requirements of Executive Order 12564 regarding drug testing 
     procedures and the personnel actions to be taken with respect 
     to any employee who is found to use illegal drugs shall apply 
     to the expanded drug testing program required by this 
     section.
       ``(c) Notification to New Employees.--The Secretary of 
     Defense shall notify persons employed after the date of the 
     enactment of this section that, as a condition of employment 
     by the Department of Defense, the person may be required to 
     submit to mandatory random drug testing under the expanded 
     drug testing program required by this section.''.
       (2) The table of sections at the beginning of such chapter 
     is amended by inserting after the item relating to section 
     1581 the following new item:

  ``1582. Random testing of employees for use of illegal drugs.''.

       (b) Funding.--No additional funds are authorized to be 
     appropriated on account of the amendment made by subsection 
     (a). The Secretary of Defense shall carry out the expanded 
     drug testing program for civilian employees of the Department 
     of Defense under section 383 of title 10, United States Code, 
     as added by subsection (a), using amounts otherwise provided 
     for the program.
                                  ____

  Amendment to be offered by Mr. Everett:
       At the end of title XII (page ____, after line ____), 
     insert the following:

     SEC. ____. TRANSFER OF EXCESS UH-1 HUEY HELICOPTERS AND AH-1 
                   COBRA HELICOPTERS TO FOREIGN COUNTRIES.

       (a) In General.--(1) Chapter 153 of title 10, United States 
     Code, is amended by adding at the end the following new 
     section:

     ``Sec. 2581. Transfer of excess uh-1 huey helicopters and ah-
       1 cobra helicopters to foreign countries

       ``(a) Requirements.--The Secretary of Defense shall make 
     all reasonable efforts to ensure that any excess UH-1 Huey 
     helicopter or AH-1 Cobra helicopter that is to be transferred 
     on a grant or sales basis to a foreign country for the 
     purpose of flight operations for such country shall meet the 
     following requirements:
       ``(1) Prior to such transfer, the helicopter receives, to 
     the extent necessary, maintenance and repair equivalent to 
     the depot-level maintenance and repair, as defined in section 
     2460 of this title, that such helicopter would need were the 
     helicopter to remain in operational use with the armed forces 
     of the United States.
       ``(2) Maintenance and repair described in paragraph (1) is 
     performed in the United States.
       ``(b) Exception.--The requirements of subsection (a) shall 
     not apply with respect to salvage helicopters provided to the 
     foreign country solely as a source for spare parts.''.
       (2) The table of sections at the beginning of such chapter 
     is amended by adding at the end the following new item:

``2581. Transfer of excess uh-1 huey helicopters and ah-1 cobra 
              helicopters to foreign countries.''.
       (b) Effective Date.--Section 2581 of title 10, United 
     States Code, as added by subsection (a), shall apply with 
     respect to the transfer of a UH-1 Huey helicopter or AH-1 
     Cobra helicopter on or after the date of the enactment of 
     this Act.

  Mr. SOLOMON (during the reading). Mr. Speaker, I ask unanimous 
consent that the amendments be considered as read and printed in the 
Record.
  The SPEAKER pro tempore. Is there objection to the request of the 
gentleman from New York?
  There was no objection.
  The SPEAKER pro tempore. Is there objection to the initial request of 
the gentleman from New York?
  There was no objection.
  Mr. SOLOMON. Mr. Speaker, I yield such time as he may consume to the 
gentleman from Sanibel, Florida (Mr. Porter Goss), a very important 
member of the Committee on Rules.
  Mr. GOSS. Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentleman from Glens Falls, New 
York, for yielding me the time.
  Mr. Speaker, there is a lot I would like to say about this rule. It 
is a good rule and deserves Member support. It was carefully crafted. 
There were many amendments. It is balanced, it is fair, and I urge 
everybody's support.
  The reason I am here with what is left of my voice today is to pay 
some testimony to the very fine work of the gentleman from South 
Carolina (Chairman Spence) and ranking member, the gentleman from 
Missouri (Mr. Ike Skelton).
  The gentleman from Missouri (Mr. Skelton) is the crossover Member on 
the Permanent Select Committee on Intelligence, and we have, as 
everybody knows, on defense authorization close cooperation and 
coordination with the Committee on National Security.
  Things would not work as smoothly as they have without the gentleman 
from Missouri (Mr. Skelton), and I personally and publicly wanted to 
thank him, the gentleman from South Carolina (Chairman Spence), and the 
staffs of both committees that who have worked so hard to make sure we 
have come up with a good product.
  I, too, think we have underfunded, but we are doing the best with 
what we have. I urge support for the rule.
  Mr. Speaker, I rise in strong support of H.R. 3616, the Department of 
Defense Authorization Bill for 1999.

[[Page H3501]]

  Mr. Speaker, I wish to congratulate my friends Chairman Spence and 
the Ranking Member Mr. Skelton on delivering the House a sound, 
bipartisan defense bill that I think all the Members of this body can, 
and should, vote for. After 14 years of steady decline in the defense 
budget, they were again handed a request by the Administration that 
clearly asks our men and women in the Armed Forces to do ``more with 
less.'' Mr. Spence and Mr. Skelton's efforts, and indeed the 
outstanding efforts by all members of the National Security Committee, 
have allowed for the careful crafting of a bill that manages increasing 
world-wide risk in an era of shrinking forces and budgets. This is no 
easy task.
  Mr. Speaker, as the Members of this body know, the dollars for the 
Intelligence Budget Authorization that we here in the House passed on 
the 7th of May--on a voice vote--are contained in this defense 
authorization. I can tell you that the close coordination between the 
National Security Committee and the Permanent Select Committee on 
Intelligence--on which, I might add, the distinguished Member from 
Missouri, Mr. Skelton, plays a tremendously valuable role as a cross-
over member--allowed us to put together a prudent defense intelligence 
input to this authorization bill. Together, this bill and the 
intelligence bill focus on the needs of our Nation. H.R. 3616 increases 
spending on equipment modernization, it increases the funding for 
National Guard and Reserve modernization not funded in the President's 
request, it addresses a balanced quality of life investment for our 
military personnel, and it improves readiness.
  But, Mr. Speaker, this does not mean we are looking at a ``fat'' 
bill. While the funding in this bill is consistent with the Balanced 
Budget Act of 1997, it should be pointed out that the President's 
defense request--according to the military service chiefs--is under-
funded by more than 10 billion dollars. I wish we were spending more on 
our national security--on our military and our intelligence services. 
Not seeing the will at this point in the Administration to make this 
critically important--even if politically difficult--call, I believe 
H.R. 3616 does what can be done to limit the further ``hollowing'' out 
of our defenses. I urge my colleagues to vote yes on H.R. 3616.
  Mr. FROST. Mr. Speaker, I yield 4 minutes to the gentlewoman from the 
District of Columbia (Ms. Norton).
  Ms. NORTON. Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentleman for yielding time to 
me.
  Mr. Speaker, I come to the floor, at the very least in disbelief, and 
at most with a sense of outrage, because this bill contains a provision 
that is so serious and such a departure that at the very least, any 
responsible legislative body would have wanted it debated.
  The gentlewoman from New York (Mrs. Carolyn Maloney) and I went to 
the Committee on Rules yesterday to ask that an amendment to remove a 
provision of the bill and at least postpone the resegregation of basic 
training throughout the armed services be made in order. Our amendment 
would simply have stopped congressional action to segregate the armed 
services pending the receipt of the report of the Commission on 
Military Training and Gender-Related Issues, whose members were just 
appointed in February. This commission has been authorized by this body 
to study the very issues this body is due to vote on as part of this 
bill today.
  The gentlewoman from Florida (Mrs. Fowler) and the gentlewoman from 
California (Ms. Harman) asked for a similar amendment. The 
resegregation now in the bill represents a major structural setback for 
the services and for women that the Department of Defense and the 
services strongly oppose.
  Yet, we learned this morning that neither the Fowler-Harman nor the 
Maloney-Norton amendment has been made in order. I am here this morning 
to announce that the Bipartisan Women's Caucus of this House is not 
going to take the failure to allow us to even debate this bill sitting 
down or standing up.
  The position I am articulating is the position of the Republican and 
the Democratic Members who are women of the House of Representatives. 
It is the position of 55 women strong in this House. I am going to 
leave this floor and go with the gentlewoman from New York (Mrs. 
Maloney) and other women and men of this body to the tarmac in just a 
moment, where we will be holding a press conference.
  Among the participants will be Evelyn Foote, the Brigadier General, 
U.S. Army Retired, who is Vice-Chair of the Secretary of the Army 
Senior Review Panel Report on Sexual Harassment. Also with us will be 
Holly Hempfield, the 1996 chair of the Department of Defense Advisory 
Committee on Women in the Services. Both of these women who carry the 
views of the armed services are with the 55 women of the House of 
Representatives, saying if you want to set us back, at least hear us 
out first, do not silence us.
  Moreover, we speak for the women of the military, and we are sure 
that we speak for the women and the men of the military. The Department 
of Defense Advisory Committee on Women in the Services, appointed by 
the Secretary of Defense, met with 1,200 trainees and trainers in a 
random sample to find what the troops believe about men and women 
serving together in basic training.
  They found the overwhelming sentiment of our troops to be that men 
and women who fight together must train together. This train-as-you-
fight strategy ensures combat readiness goals are met. We are here to 
make clear that the women of the Congress will never retreat on this 
issue.
  Mr. FROST. Mr. Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.
  Mr. SOLOMON. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume.
  Mr. Speaker, again, the gentlewoman from the District of Columbia 
(Ms. Norton), who is a woman I deeply respect, and she always speaks 
her mind, and she does so eloquently, but I would just say to her that 
for those of us who have served in the military, we have to remember 
that most of the basic training, the men and women that go through 
basic training today, are identical to those who went through 10 years 
ago, 20 years ago, 30 or 40 years ago. They are of ages of 18, 19, 20 
years old.
  When we look at some of the situations that have occurred in other 
branches of the service besides the Marine Corps, when we mix young men 
and women together at that age, many of whom have gone away from home 
for the first time, we are going to have severe problems.
  In the Marine Corps we have managed to train them separately and we 
have not had any instances that have taken place, and I just hope the 
gentlewoman understands and respects others' views on this. It is a 
question of trying to make sure that the young men and women that are 
going to be serving in our military have adequate training, and later 
on after they are out of boot camp, they are out of basic training, 
certainly they can work together, as long as it is not in a combat 
situation.
  There are those of us that are absolutely opposed to women serving in 
combat. It is just a matter of principle with us. God forbid that women 
are taken prisoner of war. Situations occur that would not occur to a 
male, and I just could not do that to my daughters or my 
granddaughters, so I just hope she understands that there is sincerity 
on both sides of the aisle on the issue.
  Ms. NORTON. Mr. Speaker, will the gentleman yield?
  Mr. SOLOMON. I yield to the gentlewoman from the District of 
Columbia.
  Ms. NORTON. Mr. Speaker, I do understand, and I have the most 
profound respect for the gentleman from New York (Mr. Solomon). I 
understand the feelings of the gentleman from New York, for whom I have 
the most profound respect. He served in the armed services when 
integrated services was unthinkable.
  I do want to say only to the gentleman that I know he did not mean to 
say that the kinds of abuses and sexual harassment which have in fact 
come forward are anything like representative situations. I do not 
believe we should step back a giant step because of a few instances of 
abuse.
  I think, on the contrary, that we ought to congratulate the troops 
for the way in which gender integration has succeeded, and may I say to 
the gentleman, I was surprised, particularly because I believe he has 
the votes, that we were not granted the right even to debate this 
matter for a limited period of time. That is all we asked.
  Mr. FROST. Mr. Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from 
Virginia (Mr. Sisisky).
  Mr. SISISKY. Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentleman for yielding me the 
time.
  Mr. Speaker, I would tell my good friend, the chairman of the 
Committee on Rules, I was surprised that the Fowler amendment was not 
in there

[[Page H3502]]

today. We had a very close vote in the committee. Also, I further want 
to advise, the problem that we first had in the sexual problems was not 
in basic training. Aberdeen was advanced training.
  Let me just tell the Members this. My problem, and I said it right in 
the committee, I do not know enough what is right and wrong now. It 
should not be up to me to decide. I called every chief of the service 
the morning of the vote, and every one of them, every one of them, said 
we want to integrate the training in basic training, with the exception 
of the Marine Corps.
  I said fine. If the Marine Corps wants to do it differently, let them 
do it differently. If the Navy wants to do it differently, let them do 
it. We should not impose ourselves on that. This is a very important 
issue, I would tell the chairman. I am going to vote for the rule, 
because I am anxious to get this thing going, but I must say, I am very 
disappointed that this amendment was not in there.
  Mr. SOLOMON. Mr. Speaker, I am glad to yield 3 minutes to the very 
distinguished gentlewoman from Jacksonville, Florida (Mrs. Fowler), a 
member of the committee.
  Mrs. FOWLER. Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentleman for yielding me the 
time.
  Mr. Speaker, I rise to express my appreciation to the Committee on 
Rules, first for making one of my amendments in order, and my 
disappointment that the other was not. I believe, as I walked in, I 
think the gentleman from Virginia (Mr. Sisisky) must have been talking 
to this issue, also.
  But with my colleague, the gentlewoman from California (Ms. Jane 
Harman), I have put forward an amendment in the committee to retain 
current policies regarding integration of male and female soldiers, 
sailors and airmen at the unit level during basic training. 
Unfortunately, this amendment was not made in order under this rule.
  Our amendment would have stricken section 521 of the bill, which 
requires gender segregation at the small unit level throughout basic 
training, and the housing of male and female recruits in separate 
barracks.
  Instead, our amendment would have required the Congressional 
Commission on Military Training and Gender-Related Issues, which this 
Congress established only last year at a cost of $2.2 million, to 
specifically study the recommendations of the Kassebaum-Baker 
Commission before any action on this matter could proceed.
  While I have the highest regard for my good friends, Senators 
Kassebaum and Baker, the methodology that was employed by that panel 
has been criticized by the GAO. The Fowler-Harman amendment also would 
have promoted privacy by gender in living spaces to the maximum extent 
practicable, without a specific requirement to separate by barracks.

                              {time}  1130

  I would note that the Army, Navy and Air Force chiefs oppose section 
521 on the grounds that it removes their discretion for training as 
they fight. I would note that according to General Lezy, the Deputy 
Assistant Secretary of Defense for Military Personnel Policy, section 
521 would require the Army to spend $159 million in fiscal year 2000 to 
build new barracks to segregate its recruits. The Army has not budgeted 
for this requirement. When 64 percent of the Department of Defense 
family housing is unsuitable, I believe there are better ways to spend 
this money.
  Mr. Speaker, the commission appointed by Congress will use objective 
standards to evaluate the value of gender-integrated or segregated 
basic training and report to us. We ought not prejudge their findings. 
I will be working in conference to eliminate section 521, and would 
appreciate the support of many of my colleagues in this regard.
  I do support the rule on this bill. This is an extremely important 
bill to the defense of our country. There are many other issues than 
this one in this bill. This is a good rule overall. It is a good bill. 
It is greatly needed for our young men and women that are serving in 
the armed services of our country. I urge all of my colleagues to 
support the rule and then to support the bill later today.
  Mr. SOLOMON. Mr. Speaker, I yield 4 minutes to the very distinguished 
gentleman from San Diego, California (Mr. Hunter), a stalwart advocate 
of our Nation's military.
  Mr. HUNTER. Mr. Speaker, I thank the chairman of the Committee on 
Rules for yielding this time.
  Mr. Speaker, let me say he has gotten beaten up a little bit over 
this rule. Let me tell Members something that the chairman did insist 
on that was very important from a national security standpoint. That is 
that he has allowed and the committee has allowed, and should be 
commended for letting us put in four amendments that have to do with 
the transfer of satellite technology, which is at this point a very 
critical issue for national security.
  Most people now know that China has been launching American 
satellites with their Long March rockets, which are essentially the 
same rockets that are aimed with nuclear-tipped warheads at cities in 
the United States. We have an interest, obviously, in not accuratizing 
those missiles or making them more reliable. Unfortunately, after a 
failed launch in 1996, it has been alleged that Loral and Hughes, two 
of our satellite companies, engaged with the Chinese scientists after 
one of the satellites had gone down, and it was a $200 million package, 
engaged with the Chinese scientists and engineers and showed them what 
they were doing wrong with respect to these Long March rockets, which 
have nuclear-tipped missiles which are aimed at the United States.
  The Department of Defense issued a statement that said American 
security interests have been harmed. That is the Department of Defense 
for the Clinton administration, very serious statement. It is clear 
that our policy with respect to transferring satellite technology to 
China has been detrimental to the United States. There may have been 
criminal activities, and we need to further explore this issue. But 
today we have several amendments that have been allowed.
  The gentleman from South Carolina (Mr. Spence) and the gentleman from 
New York (Mr. Gilman) have an amendment that expresses the sense of 
Congress that business interests must not be placed over United States 
security interests and that the United States should not agree to a 
variety of initiatives at the upcoming presidential summit in China, 
including support for Chinese membership in the missile technology 
control regime, a blanket waiver of Tiananmen Square sanctions, an 
increase in space launches from China, agreeing to unverifiable arms 
control initiatives, increasing the level of military to military 
contacts, and entering any new agreements involving space or missile 
related technology.
  Essentially we are saying, you fouled this thing up, you have given 
away American security interests. We are putting the brakes on until we 
can sort this thing out. It is an excellent amendment by the gentleman 
from South Carolina (Mr. Spence) and the gentleman from New York (Mr. 
Gilman).
  The gentleman from Nebraska (Mr. Bereuter) has an amendment that 
would prohibit U.S. participation in any post-launch failure 
investigation involving the launch of a U.S. satellite from China. 
Somebody mentioned that Loral and Hughes were kind of like the engineer 
who was sentenced to the guillotine by Khomeini, and after the 
guillotine had failed to work on several other people who would have 
been executed and they were allowed to go free, the engineer, the 
American engineer laid under the guillotine and said, I think I see 
your problem.
  At any rate, the Bereuter amendment would prohibit U.S. participation 
in any post-launch failure investigation involving the launch of an 
U.S. satellite. We have the Hefley amendment that would prohibit the 
export or reexport of any missile equipment or technology to the 
People's Republic of China. And finally, I have an amendment that would 
prohibit the export or reexport of U.S. satellites, including 
commercial satellites and satellite components, to the People's 
Republic of China.
  These are very important amendments. I thank the committee and the 
chairman for allowing them.
  Mr. FROST. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume.

[[Page H3503]]

  Mr. Speaker, this is an important rule. This is an important piece of 
legislation. I support the rule. I would advise the Chair at this point 
that there will be a Member on our side who will seek a vote on the 
previous question. I would ask the Chair to recognize that Member at 
the appropriate time.
  Mr. Speaker, I yield back the balance of my time.
  Mr. SOLOMON. Mr. Speaker, I yield 1\1/2\ minutes to the gentleman 
from Indiana (Mr. Buyer).
  Mr. BUYER. Mr. Speaker, I came to the floor because I want to ensure 
that the Members that come to vote on this rule understand what 
happened in the Committee on National Security with regard to the 
Kassebaum-Baker panel's recommendations. There are no distortions that 
are out there.
  Nancy Kassebaum's panel were 10 individuals of highly diverse 
background who made a unanimous decision that was overwhelmingly 
received favorably across the country. Why? Because it gave common 
sense solutions. It said, separate by gender in the barracks and at the 
small unit level, that is flights in the Air Force, divisions in the 
Navy and by platoon in the Army, but then when they go train, it is 
integrated training.
  There are those that are trying to distort this by calling it 
segregated training. That is completely false. I want Members to 
understand this is only separating by barracks. Basically we are saying 
we do not necessarily think that young men and women ought to be 
sleeping together and we recognize that we have some collateral 
problems when that occurs. So when Members come to the floor, I want 
them to be very clear in understanding what exactly this is.
  It is the Nancy Kassebaum language on those two issues. And to make 
sure that the services across the river do not spin this with regard to 
the Air Force, this takes the Air Force back to the way they were doing 
it for over 20 years. They used to separate by flight, by gender, until 
July of last year. So do not let anybody distort this. I want to be 
very clear with Members. If they have any questions, contact me and I 
will be very pleased to explain it to them.
  Mr. SOLOMON. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself the balance of my time.
  In closing the debate, let me just say that the statement by the 
gentleman from Indiana (Mr. Buyer) is the exact reason why I took full 
responsibility for not allowing the Maloney amendment, because if it 
had come on this floor it would have been a totally political issue and 
would not have dealt with the merits. I did so after consulting with 
the administration; this is the Clinton administration. The Clinton 
administration did not want this issue to come on the floor, nor did 
they want the Bosnia issue to come on the floor.
  Mr. FRANK of Massachusetts. Mr. Speaker, will the gentleman yield?
  Mr SOLOMON. I will not yield at this time, Mr. Speaker.
  They did not want the Iraq issue to come on to the floor.
  Mrs. MALONEY of New York. Mr. Speaker, will the gentleman yield?
  Mr. SOLOMON. Mr. Speaker, we do not interrupt somebody who is 
closing. They know better than that.
  I just wanted to say one last thing, that I also take full 
responsibility for not allowing any cutting amendments. I have done 
this for the last several years because I am absolutely outraged to 
what is happening with our military. We have Members that will come on 
this floor, they will want to cut a little bit here and a little bit 
there. Pretty soon we are right back to where we were in 1979.
  Mr. Speaker, we cannot allow that to happen. If Members do not like 
the funding level, if they think it is too much, come over here and 
vote ``no.'' But if they want to stand up for the young men and women 
that are serving in our military today, we want to give them the best 
procurement in weapons we can give them. We want to give them the best 
training. We want to give them the best benefits in order to let them 
undertake an honorable career in the military. It is more honorable 
than any other career in this country, yet many Members in this House 
do not seem to give a damn anymore.
  Mr. FRANK of Massachusetts. Mr. Speaker, will the gentleman yield?
  Mr. SOLOMON. I will not yield.
  I hope that Members will come over to this body and vote for this 
rule. We have been as fair as we possibly can. We have made a 
percentage of Democrat amendments in order compared to what they had 
asked for. The same thing with the Republicans, we shut out many 
Republicans in order to try to be fair. That is why everyone should 
come over here and vote for this rule today.
  Mr. EVANS. Mr. Speaker, today's rule on the FY99 DOD Authorization 
Act does not include my amendment which would have barred U.S. special 
forces training of the Indonesian Military in FY99. I am gravely 
disappointed that the Rules Committee did not see fit to allow the 
House to consider this issue at such an important juncture in our 
nation's policy toward Indonesia.
  Today, Indonesia is entrenched in an unprecedented political and 
economic crisis. Recent reports of student deaths at the hands of 
Indonesian police opening fire on demonstrations is just one example of 
the violence and terror that have become routine within the Suharto 
regime.
  This type of repression is just the latest chapter in the Suharto 
regimes' transgressions against its own people. No where is that more 
apparent than in the conduct of the Indonesian military. The use of the 
Indonesian military in the intimidation, torture and murder of both 
Indonesians and the citizens of East Timor is widespread, documented 
and undisputed. The brutal massacre of over 270 peaceful demonstrators 
in an East Timor cemetery by the Indonesian Military at the beginning 
of this decade led Congress to ban U.S. taxpayer funded IMET training 
in 1992.
  Despite this strong indication by Congress to stop assistance to the 
Indonesian Military, the Department of Defense continues to provide 
assistance through the Joint Combined Exchange and Training program. 
Last September, I wrote Secretary of Defense Cohen requesting detailed 
information on the training of members of the Kopassus, the elite 
special forces division of the Indonesian military. The Kopassus is 
famous for its role as the ruthless ``enforcer'' of Indonesia's 
occupation of East Timor.
  Several months later, I received a response from Deputy Secretary 
John Hamre, describing the United States' continued training of the 
Indonesian military under another program--the JCET. While I recognize 
that Indonesia's participation in the JCET program is in compliance 
with U.S. law, I do not support any training of the Indonesian military 
by U.S. armed services. It is clear to me and several of my colleagues 
that the JCET program is the Pentagon's loophole to the ban on IMET.
  The amendment, which I was to offer with Representatives Nita Lowey, 
Patrick Kennedy and Chris Smith, would have sent a direct message to 
President Suharto that the flagrant abuse of power, unmitigated 
repression and complete disregard for fundamental human rights will not 
be tolerated. Because the moratorium would have lasted only for the 
fiscal year, it would have allowed Congress to reassess the merits of 
providing military training to Indonesia next year.
  I hope that we can address this problem later in the session, but I 
still believe it was an opportunity that this Congress should not have 
missed. This rule abrogates our responsibility to ensure that our 
national security policy embodies the very democratic principles it 
seeks to defend. I believe it is unfortunate and does not reflect well 
on this institution.
  Mr. SOLOMON. Mr. Speaker, I yield back the balance of my time, and I 
move the previous question on the resolution.
  The SPEAKER pro tempore (Mr. Shaw). The question is on ordering the 
previous question.
  The question was taken; and the Speaker pro tempore announced that 
the ayes appeared to have it.
  Mr. FRANK of Massachusetts. Mr. Speaker, I object to the vote on the 
ground that a quorum is not present and make the point of order that a 
quorum is not present.
  The SPEAKER pro tempore. Evidently a quorum is not present.
  The Sergeant at Arms will notify absent Members.
  Pursuant to clause 5 of rule XV, the Chair will reduce to a minimum 
of 5 minutes the period of time within which a vote by electronic 
device, if ordered, will be taken on the question of agreeing to the 
resolution.
  The vote was taken by electronic device, and there were--yeas 281, 
nays 134, not voting 17, as follows:

                             [Roll No. 165]

                               YEAS--281

     Abercrombie
     Aderholt
     Allen
     Archer
     Bachus
     Baker
     Baldacci
     Ballenger
     Barcia
     Barr
     Barrett (NE)
     Bartlett
     Barton
     Bass
     Bereuter
     Bilbray
     Bilirakis
     Bishop

[[Page H3504]]


     Blagojevich
     Bliley
     Blunt
     Boehlert
     Boehner
     Bonilla
     Bono
     Borski
     Boswell
     Boucher
     Brady
     Bryant
     Bunning
     Burr
     Burton
     Buyer
     Callahan
     Calvert
     Camp
     Canady
     Cannon
     Castle
     Chabot
     Chambliss
     Chenoweth
     Christensen
     Clement
     Clyburn
     Coble
     Coburn
     Collins
     Combest
     Cook
     Cooksey
     Cox
     Cramer
     Crapo
     Cubin
     Cunningham
     Danner
     Davis (VA)
     Deal
     DeLay
     Diaz-Balart
     Dickey
     Dicks
     Doolittle
     Doyle
     Dreier
     Duncan
     Dunn
     Edwards
     Ehlers
     Ehrlich
     Emerson
     English
     Ensign
     Everett
     Fawell
     Foley
     Forbes
     Fossella
     Fowler
     Fox
     Franks (NJ)
     Frelinghuysen
     Frost
     Gallegly
     Ganske
     Gekas
     Gibbons
     Gilchrest
     Gillmor
     Gilman
     Goode
     Goodlatte
     Gordon
     Goss
     Graham
     Granger
     Gutknecht
     Hall (OH)
     Hall (TX)
     Hansen
     Hastert
     Hastings (WA)
     Hayworth
     Hefley
     Hefner
     Herger
     Hill
     Hilleary
     Hobson
     Hoekstra
     Holden
     Horn
     Hostettler
     Houghton
     Hoyer
     Hulshof
     Hunter
     Hutchinson
     Hyde
     Inglis
     Istook
     Jenkins
     John
     Johnson (CT)
     Johnson, Sam
     Jones
     Kasich
     Kelly
     Kennedy (RI)
     Kennelly
     Kim
     King (NY)
     Kingston
     Klink
     Klug
     Knollenberg
     Kolbe
     LaHood
     Lampson
     Largent
     Latham
     LaTourette
     Lazio
     Leach
     Lewis (CA)
     Lewis (KY)
     Linder
     Lipinski
     Livingston
     LoBiondo
     Lucas
     Maloney (CT)
     Manzullo
     Markey
     Martinez
     Mascara
     McCarthy (MO)
     McCarthy (NY)
     McCollum
     McCrery
     McDade
     McHale
     McHugh
     McInnis
     McIntosh
     McIntyre
     McKeon
     Metcalf
     Mica
     Miller (FL)
     Minge
     Mollohan
     Moran (KS)
     Moran (VA)
     Morella
     Murtha
     Myrick
     Nethercutt
     Neumann
     Norwood
     Nussle
     Ortiz
     Oxley
     Packard
     Pappas
     Parker
     Pascrell
     Paul
     Pease
     Peterson (MN)
     Peterson (PA)
     Petri
     Pickering
     Pickett
     Pitts
     Pombo
     Pomeroy
     Porter
     Portman
     Pryce (OH)
     Quinn
     Radanovich
     Ramstad
     Redmond
     Regula
     Reyes
     Riggs
     Riley
     Roemer
     Rogan
     Rogers
     Rohrabacher
     Ros-Lehtinen
     Roukema
     Royce
     Ryun
     Sabo
     Salmon
     Sanford
     Saxton
     Scarborough
     Schaefer, Dan
     Schaffer, Bob
     Scott
     Sensenbrenner
     Sessions
     Shadegg
     Shaw
     Shays
     Sherman
     Shimkus
     Shuster
     Sisisky
     Skeen
     Skelton
     Smith (MI)
     Smith (NJ)
     Smith (OR)
     Smith (TX)
     Smith, Adam
     Smith, Linda
     Snowbarger
     Snyder
     Solomon
     Souder
     Spence
     Spratt
     Stearns
     Stenholm
     Stump
     Sununu
     Talent
     Tanner
     Tauzin
     Taylor (MS)
     Taylor (NC)
     Thomas
     Thompson
     Thornberry
     Thune
     Tiahrt
     Traficant
     Turner
     Upton
     Visclosky
     Walsh
     Wamp
     Watkins
     Watts (OK)
     Weldon (FL)
     Weldon (PA)
     Weller
     White
     Whitfield
     Wicker
     Wise
     Wolf
     Young (AK)
     Young (FL)

                               NAYS--134

     Ackerman
     Baesler
     Barrett (WI)
     Becerra
     Bentsen
     Berman
     Berry
     Blumenauer
     Bonior
     Boyd
     Brown (CA)
     Brown (FL)
     Brown (OH)
     Campbell
     Capps
     Cardin
     Clayton
     Condit
     Conyers
     Costello
     Coyne
     Cummings
     Davis (FL)
     Davis (IL)
     DeFazio
     DeGette
     Delahunt
     DeLauro
     Deutsch
     Dingell
     Dixon
     Doggett
     Dooley
     Engel
     Eshoo
     Etheridge
     Evans
     Farr
     Fattah
     Fazio
     Filner
     Ford
     Frank (MA)
     Furse
     Gejdenson
     Gephardt
     Green
     Gutierrez
     Hamilton
     Hastings (FL)
     Hilliard
     Hinojosa
     Hooley
     Jackson (IL)
     Jackson-Lee (TX)
     Jefferson
     Johnson (WI)
     Johnson, E. B.
     Kanjorski
     Kaptur
     Kennedy (MA)
     Kildee
     Kilpatrick
     Kind (WI)
     Kleczka
     Kucinich
     LaFalce
     Lantos
     Lee
     Levin
     Lewis (GA)
     Lofgren
     Lowey
     Luther
     Maloney (NY)
     Manton
     Matsui
     McDermott
     McGovern
     McKinney
     McNulty
     Meehan
     Meek (FL)
     Menendez
     Millender-McDonald
     Miller (CA)
     Mink
     Moakley
     Nadler
     Neal
     Oberstar
     Obey
     Olver
     Owens
     Pallone
     Pastor
     Payne
     Pelosi
     Poshard
     Price (NC)
     Rahall
     Rangel
     Rivers
     Rodriguez
     Rothman
     Roybal-Allard
     Rush
     Sanchez
     Sanders
     Sandlin
     Sawyer
     Schumer
     Serrano
     Skaggs
     Slaughter
     Stark
     Stokes
     Strickland
     Stupak
     Tauscher
     Thurman
     Tierney
     Torres
     Towns
     Velazquez
     Vento
     Waters
     Watt (NC)
     Waxman
     Wexler
     Weygand
     Woolsey
     Wynn
     Yates

                             NOT VOTING--17

     Andrews
     Armey
     Bateman
     Carson
     Clay
     Crane
     Ewing
     Gonzalez
     Goodling
     Greenwood
     Harman
     Hinchey
     Meeks (NY)
     Ney
     Northup
     Paxon
     Stabenow

                              {time}  1200

  Messrs. RODRIGUEZ, RANGEL, BLUMENAUER, and SKAGGS, and Ms. SANCHEZ, 
MS. MCKINNEY and Ms. KAPTUR changed their vote from ``yea'' to ``nay.''
  Mrs. KENNELLY of Connecticut and Mr. REYES changed their vote from 
``nay'' to ``yea.''

                              {time}  1201

  So the previous question was ordered.
  The result of the vote was announced as above recorded.
  The SPEAKER pro tempore (Mr. Petri). 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

  Mr. FRANK of Massachusetts. Mr. Speaker, I demand a recorded vote.
  A recorded vote was ordered.
  The vote was taken by electronic device, and there were--ayes 304, 
noes 108, not voting 20, as follows:

                             [Roll No. 166]

                               AYES--304

     Abercrombie
     Aderholt
     Allen
     Archer
     Bachus
     Baker
     Baldacci
     Ballenger
     Barcia
     Barr
     Barrett (NE)
     Bartlett
     Barton
     Bass
     Bereuter
     Bilbray
     Bilirakis
     Bishop
     Blagojevich
     Bliley
     Blunt
     Boehlert
     Boehner
     Bonilla
     Bono
     Borski
     Boswell
     Boucher
     Brady
     Bryant
     Bunning
     Burton
     Buyer
     Callahan
     Calvert
     Camp
     Canady
     Cannon
     Castle
     Chabot
     Chambliss
     Chenoweth
     Christensen
     Clayton
     Clement
     Clyburn
     Coble
     Coburn
     Collins
     Combest
     Cook
     Cooksey
     Cox
     Cramer
     Crapo
     Cubin
     Cunningham
     Danner
     Davis (VA)
     Deal
     DeLay
     Diaz-Balart
     Dickey
     Dicks
     Dixon
     Dooley
     Doolittle
     Doyle
     Dreier
     Duncan
     Dunn
     Edwards
     Ehlers
     Ehrlich
     Emerson
     English
     Ensign
     Everett
     Farr
     Fawell
     Fazio
     Foley
     Forbes
     Ford
     Fossella
     Fowler
     Fox
     Franks (NJ)
     Frelinghuysen
     Frost
     Ganske
     Gekas
     Gibbons
     Gilchrest
     Gillmor
     Gilman
     Goode
     Goodlatte
     Gordon
     Goss
     Graham
     Granger
     Greenwood
     Gutknecht
     Hall (OH)
     Hall (TX)
     Hansen
     Hastert
     Hastings (WA)
     Hayworth
     Hefley
     Hefner
     Herger
     Hill
     Hilleary
     Hobson
     Hoekstra
     Holden
     Horn
     Hostettler
     Houghton
     Hoyer
     Hulshof
     Hunter
     Hutchinson
     Hyde
     Inglis
     Istook
     Jefferson
     Jenkins
     John
     Johnson (CT)
     Johnson, Sam
     Jones
     Kanjorski
     Kasich
     Kelly
     Kennedy (RI)
     Kennelly
     Kildee
     Kilpatrick
     Kim
     King (NY)
     Kingston
     Klink
     Klug
     Knollenberg
     Kolbe
     LaHood
     Lampson
     Largent
     Latham
     LaTourette
     Lazio
     Leach
     Lewis (CA)
     Lewis (KY)
     Linder
     Lipinski
     Livingston
     LoBiondo
     Lucas
     Maloney (CT)
     Manzullo
     Markey
     Martinez
     Mascara
     McCarthy (MO)
     McCarthy (NY)
     McCollum
     McDade
     McHale
     McHugh
     McInnis
     McIntosh
     McIntyre
     McKeon
     Meek (FL)
     Menendez
     Metcalf
     Mica
     Millender-McDonald
     Miller (FL)
     Mink
     Mollohan
     Moran (KS)
     Moran (VA)
     Morella
     Murtha
     Myrick
     Nethercutt
     Neumann
     Ney
     Northup
     Norwood
     Nussle
     Ortiz
     Oxley
     Packard
     Pallone
     Pappas
     Parker
     Pascrell
     Pastor
     Paul
     Pease
     Pelosi
     Peterson (MN)
     Peterson (PA)
     Petri
     Pickering
     Pickett
     Pitts
     Pombo
     Pomeroy
     Porter
     Portman
     Price (NC)
     Pryce (OH)
     Quinn
     Radanovich
     Ramstad
     Redmond
     Regula
     Reyes
     Riggs
     Roemer
     Rogan
     Rogers
     Rohrabacher
     Ros-Lehtinen
     Rothman
     Roukema
     Royce
     Ryun
     Sabo
     Salmon
     Sanchez
     Sandlin
     Sanford
     Saxton
     Scarborough
     Schaefer, Dan
     Schaffer, Bob
     Scott
     Sensenbrenner
     Sessions
     Shadegg
     Shaw
     Sherman
     Shimkus
     Shuster
     Sisisky
     Skeen
     Skelton
     Slaughter
     Smith (MI)
     Smith (NJ)
     Smith (OR)
     Smith (TX)
     Smith, Adam
     Smith, Linda
     Snowbarger
     Snyder
     Solomon
     Souder
     Spence
     Spratt
     Stark
     Stearns
     Stenholm
     Stump
     Sununu
     Talent
     Tanner
     Tauscher
     Tauzin
     Taylor (MS)
     Taylor (NC)
     Thornberry
     Thune
     Tiahrt
     Towns
     Traficant
     Turner
     Upton
     Visclosky
     Walsh
     Wamp
     Waters
     Watkins
     Watts (OK)
     Weldon (FL)
     Weldon (PA)
     Weller
     Weygand
     White
     Whitfield
     Wicker
     Wise
     Wolf
     Wynn
     Young (AK)
     Young (FL)

                               NOES--108

     Ackerman
     Baesler
     Barrett (WI)
     Becerra
     Bentsen
     Berman
     Berry
     Blumenauer
     Bonior
     Boyd
     Brown (CA)
     Brown (FL)
     Brown (OH)
     Campbell
     Capps
     Cardin
     Condit
     Conyers
     Costello
     Coyne
     Cummings
     Davis (FL)
     Davis (IL)
     DeFazio
     DeGette
     Delahunt
     DeLauro
     Deutsch
     Dingell
     Doggett

[[Page H3505]]


     Engel
     Eshoo
     Etheridge
     Evans
     Fattah
     Filner
     Frank (MA)
     Furse
     Gallegly
     Gejdenson
     Gephardt
     Green
     Gutierrez
     Hamilton
     Hastings (FL)
     Hilliard
     Hinojosa
     Hooley
     Jackson (IL)
     Jackson-Lee (TX)
     Johnson (WI)
     Johnson, E. B.
     Kaptur
     Kennedy (MA)
     Kind (WI)
     Kleczka
     Kucinich
     LaFalce
     Lantos
     Lee
     Levin
     Lewis (GA)
     Lofgren
     Lowey
     Luther
     Maloney (NY)
     Matsui
     McDermott
     McGovern
     McKinney
     McNulty
     Meehan
     Miller (CA)
     Minge
     Moakley
     Nadler
     Neal
     Oberstar
     Obey
     Olver
     Owens
     Poshard
     Rahall
     Rangel
     Rivers
     Rodriguez
     Roybal-Allard
     Rush
     Sanders
     Sawyer
     Schumer
     Serrano
     Shays
     Skaggs
     Stokes
     Strickland
     Stupak
     Thompson
     Thurman
     Tierney
     Torres
     Velazquez
     Vento
     Watt (NC)
     Waxman
     Wexler
     Woolsey
     Yates

                             NOT VOTING--20

     Andrews
     Armey
     Bateman
     Burr
     Carson
     Clay
     Crane
     Ewing
     Gonzalez
     Goodling
     Harman
     Hinchey
     Manton
     McCrery
     Meeks (NY)
     Paxon
     Payne
     Riley
     Stabenow
     Thomas

                              {time}  1212

  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.

                          ____________________