[Congressional Record Volume 144, Number 81 (Friday, June 19, 1998)]
[House]
[Pages H4843-H4850]
From the Congressional Record Online through the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]




  PROVIDING FOR CONSIDERATION OF H.R. 4059, THE MILITARY CONSTRUCTION 
                        APPROPRIATIONS ACT, 1999

  Mr. DIAZ-BALART. Mr. Speaker, by direction of the Committee on Rules, 
I call up House Resolution 477 and ask for its immediate consideration.
  The Clerk read the resolution, as follows:

                              H. Res. 477

       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. 4059) making appropriations for military 
     construction, family housing, and base realignment and 
     closure for the Department of Defense for the fiscal year 
     ending September 30, 1999, and for other purposes. The first 
     reading of the bill shall be dispensed with. General debate 
     shall be confined to the bill and shall not exceed one hour 
     equally divided and controlled by the chairman and ranking 
     minority member of the Committee on Appropriations. After 
     general debate the bill shall be considered for amendment 
     under the five-minute rule. Points of order against 
     provisions in the bill for failure to comply with clause 2 or 
     6 of rule XXI are waived. During consideration of the bill 
     for amendment, the Chairman of the Committee of the Whole may 
     accord priority in recognition on the basis of whether the 
     Member offering an amendment has caused it to be printed in 
     the portion of the Congressional Record designated for that 
     purpose in clause 6 of rule XXIII. Amendments so printed 
     shall be considered as read. The chairman of the Committee of 
     the Whole may: (1) postpone until a time during further 
     consideration in the Committee of the Whole a request for a 
     recorded vote on any amendment; and (2) reduce to five 
     minutes the minimum time for electronic voting on any 
     postponed question that follows another electronic vote 
     without intervening business, provided that the minimum time 
     for electronic voting on the first in any series of questions 
     shall be 15 minutes. At the conclusion of consideration of 
     the bill for amendment the Committee shall rise and report 
     the bill to the House with such amendments as may have been 
     adopted. The previous question shall be considered as ordered 
     on the bill and amendments thereto to final passage without 
     intervening motion except one motion to recommit with or 
     without instructions.
       Sec. 2. Pending the adoption by the Congress of a 
     concurrent resolution on the budget for fiscal year 1999, the 
     following allocations contemplated by section 302(a) of the 
     Congressional Budget Act of 1974 shall be considered as made 
     to the Committee on Appropriations:
       (1) New discretionary budget authority: $531,961,000,000.
       (2) Discretionary outlays: $562,277,000,000.
       (3) New mandatory budget authority: $298,105,000,000.
       (4) Mandatory outlays: $290,858,000,000.

                              {time}  0915

  The SPEAKER pro tempore (Mr. LaTourette). The gentleman from Florida 
(Mr. Diaz-Balart) is recognized for 1 hour.
  Mr. DIAZ-BALART. Mr. Speaker, for the purpose of debate only, I yield 
the customary 30 minutes to the gentleman from Ohio (Mr. Hall), pending 
which I yield myself such time as I may consume. During consideration 
of this resolution all time yielded is for the purpose of debate only.
  House Resolution 477 is an open rule providing for the consideration 
of H.R. 4059, the Military Construction Appropriations bill for fiscal 
year 1999.
  The rule provides for 1 hour of general debate equally divided 
between the chairman and ranking minority member of the Committee on 
Appropriations. Further, the rule waives points of order against the 
consideration of the bill for failure to comply with clause 2 of Rule 
XXI, prohibiting unauthorized appropriations or legislative 
appropriations in general appropriations bills, and clause 6 of Rule 
XXI, prohibiting reappropriations in general appropriations bills.
  Further, Members who have preprinted their amendments in the 
Congressional Record prior to their consideration will be given 
priority recognition to offer their amendments if otherwise consistent 
with House rules.
  In addition, the rule grants the Chairman of the Committee of the 
Whole the authority to postpone votes and reduce voting time to 5 
minutes, provided that the first vote in a series is not less than 15 
minutes.
  The rule provides for one motion to recommit, with or without 
instructions.
  Finally, because we are still without a budget resolution conference 
report, the rule provides that the allocations required by the Budget 
Act, section 302(a) of the Congressional Budget Act of 1974 that sets 
out the process requiring those numbers, shall be considered as made to 
the Committee on Appropriations. In other words, Mr. Speaker, we are 
using last year's budget resolution numbers, as adjusted for economic 
assumptions.
  The Committee on Rules hearing was cordial and bipartisan, which I am 
told is a reflection of how the Subcommittee on Military Construction 
of the Committee on Appropriations has acted during the stewardship of 
the gentleman from California (Mr. Packard), the chairman of the 
subcommittee, and the gentleman from North Carolina (Mr. Hefner), the 
ranking member. The gentleman from North Carolina (Mr. Hefner) has been 
a tremendous asset to this House, and his contributions to a better 
quality of life for our men and women in uniform are truly commendable.
  I support this open rule as well as the underlying bill. The bill 
funds military construction, family housing and base closure for the 
Department of Defense for the fiscal year ending September 30, 1999. 
The spending level represents a reduction in the underlying bill of $1 
billion from last year's bill, $8.2 billion this year versus $9.2 
billion for 1998, a reduction from last year's bill, and I believe that 
the bill contains a reasonable amount of spending, with the majority of 
the money going to family housing.

[[Page H4844]]

  I commend the gentleman from California (Mr. Packard) and the 
gentleman from North Carolina (Mr. Hefner) for their hard work and 
cooperation in bringing forward this Military Construction 
Appropriations bill, and I would urge the adoption of both the rule and 
the underlying bill.
  Mr. Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.
  Mr. HALL of Ohio. Mr. Speaker, I want to thank my colleague from 
Florida (Mr. Diaz-Balart) for yielding me the time, and I yield myself 
such time as I may consume.
  This resolution, which is H. Res. 477, is an open rule. It will allow 
for full and fair debate on H.R. 4059, which is the Military 
Construction Appropriations bill for fiscal year 1999.
  As my colleague from Florida described, this rule provides for 1 hour 
of general debate, equally divided and controlled by the chairman and 
ranking minority member of the Committee on Appropriations.
  This rule permits germane amendments under the 5-minute rule, which 
is the normal amending process in the House. All Members on both sides 
of the aisle will have the opportunity to offer amendments.
  The Committee on Rules reported this rule without opposition in a 
voice vote.
  This bill appropriates $8.2 billion for military construction, 
housing for military members and their families, hospitals, and 
construction projects associated with base closings. This represents a 
cut of about 11 percent below the level appropriated last year.
  The bill funds necessary capital improvements to our Nation's 
military facilities. The bill places a special emphasis on the planning 
and the construction of several barracks, family housing and 
operational facilities.
  The bill contains funding for 3 projects at Wright-Patterson Air 
Force Base, which is partially located in my district. This includes 
money to restore 40 units of family housing.
  The bill also funds construction of a building to consolidate the 
Aeronautical System Center's acquisition support functions.
  The third Wright-Patterson project will renovate a C-141-C flight 
simulation training facility for the Air Force Reserve.
  I also wish to call to the attention of my colleagues an extra 
provision in the rule which essentially scraps the budget resolution 
that we just passed on the floor of this House 2 weeks ago.
  The rule we are now voting on establishes that the Committee on 
Appropriations will use last year's spending targets, not the ones we 
adopted in the House this year.
  Mr. Speaker, passage of this bill is important to our national 
defense and to our fighting forces.
  Mr. Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.
  Mr. DIAZ-BALART. Mr. Speaker, we have no further speakers at this 
time.
  Mr. HALL of Ohio. Mr. Speaker, I yield 5 minutes to the gentleman 
from Wisconsin (Mr. Obey).
  Mr. OBEY. Mr. Speaker, this is really an incredible process that we 
are going through here this morning. When the majority party took 
control of the House, they said they would do things differently, and 
they sure have. If we take a look at what has happened, this House has, 
or is supposed to have, an orderly budget process. We are supposed to 
produce a budget resolution which defines priorities and defines 
overall spending patterns, and then and only then are committees 
supposed to bring up their legislation which fits within the budget 
resolution which has been passed.
  Instead, this House, this year, under this leadership has blown that 
process to smithereens. First it started with the highway bill, which 
before the budget resolution was even considered ran that horse out of 
the barn. That bill wound up spending about $25 billion more than the 
budget allowed it to spend.
  Then this House passed the Kasich budget, which indicated that they 
were going to make substantial reductions below the budget which we 
agreed to last year. This chart demonstrates the difference between the 
Kasich budget and the budget that had been agreed to on a bipartisan 
basis with the White House last year. Under that bipartisan agreement 
last year, we are already supposed to be cutting domestic discretionary 
spending $43 billion below current services. Under the Kasich plan 
which this House passed, which that side of the aisle passed, those 
cuts are increased to $64 billion by the fourth year.
  But then, having posed for political holy pictures by saying that 
they are going to cut that amount in the generic, what has happened? 
They then bring to the floor appropriation bills which do not meet the 
Kasich targets, and now we are supposed to, under this rule, for 
instance, approve a proposal which has a $1.4 billion adjustment in 
this year alone to the Kasich budget. That is not the only variance 
from the Kasich budget that we have here today, and it certainly is not 
the only variation from square budgeting.
  Because in addition to this $1.4 billion gimmick, the committee is 
also bringing appropriation bills to the floor which exempt from the 
caps, which they just imposed, spending to solve our computer problem 
for the year 2000; in addition to which they brought additional 
spending to the floor in the defense bill which provides an additional 
amount of spending above the cap for computer security.
  In addition to that, the majority party which for years has said that 
the CBO should be the Bible when it comes to determining what spending 
levels are, they have just decided that they are going to direct the 
CBO to say that the defense bill costs $2.5 billion less than it 
actually costs.
  So when we total it all up, we have a $1.4 billion gimmick in this 
rule this morning. We had in the defense bill almost $5 billion in 
excess of the caps if those caps are going to be counted on a real 
basis; plus, we have in the Treasury Post Office appropriation bill 
another $2 billion in excess of where the caps are supposed to bring us 
in.
  So at this point I would simply say, it is very, very difficult to 
figure out what the rules are, because so far we have been proceeding 
under 3 different sets of rules, 3 different sets of assumptions within 
the past 3 weeks.
  I have finally figured out what the rules are for spending this year. 
The rules are whatever the Speaker's office says they are. So I am 
going to vote against this rule because I think that this is an 
incredible way to run a railroad.
  What has happened is that the Republican leadership has brought to 
the floor the Kasich budget resolution, which pretended to their most 
conservative Members within the Republican Caucus that they intended to 
make these deep reductions shown by this chart. They are now bringing 
appropriation bills to the floor which totally ignore those levels. All 
I can say, fellows, if this is your idea of reform, I would hate to see 
your idea of what the status quo is all about.
  Mr. DIAZ-BALART. Mr. Speaker, we have no further speakers at this 
time.
  I yield myself such time as I may consume to simply reiterate that 
the underlying legislation being brought to the floor this morning has 
a cut in it, a reduction in funding of $1 billion. That is not a 
reduction in growth, that is an actual cut of $1 billion from last 
year's bill, and that the Budget Act of 1974 is complied with with the 
procedure that we are following this morning.
  Equally as important, the legislation that we are bringing to the 
floor this morning is under an open rule where every Member will have 
the opportunity to propose any amendment that the membership may wish 
to.
  We are striving to bring as many pieces of legislation to the floor 
with open rules as possible. We are proud of our record in that regard, 
and we will continue to bring as much legislation as possible to the 
floor under this open rule process which grants every Member the 
opportunity to bring forth any amendment that is germane.
  So with that in mind and stating it once again that this is an open 
rule, I would urge the adoption of the rule and reserve the balance of 
my time.
  Mr. HALL of Ohio. Mr. Speaker, I yield 5 minutes to the gentleman 
from South Carolina (Mr. Spratt).
  Mr. SPRATT. Mr. Speaker, let me explain to the House our problem. 
This bill has a totally nongermane provision in it, this resolution. 
For the first time in the 15 or 16 years that I have been in the House, 
and longer for the gentleman from Wisconsin (Mr. Obey), we are using a 
rule to comply with the

[[Page H4845]]

Budget Act. We are making budget process procedures here in a rule.

                              {time}  0930

  Buried in this rule dealing with military construction appropriations 
is a major budget resolution provision. No notice. Simply stuck in 
there with the numbers. So that anyone who did not follow the numbers 
would not really understand the significance of this provision.
  But here is the significance of it. This is an admission of failure. 
The Budget Act says that the budget resolution must be completed by 
Congress, through the House, through the Senate, through conference, a 
concurrent resolution passed by April 15. We are already more than two 
months delinquent. More delinquent, later than ever before in the 25 
years that we have had a budget process.
  In order to complete the process, the reason we have this deadline is 
so that the Committee on Appropriations can begin its allocation 
process. It has 13 subcommittees. The resolutions that we pass of 
spending functions has to be allocated to the separate subcommittees. 
And unless we get this done timely, the Committee on Appropriations 
cannot get their bills to the floor.
  But anticipating that we might not do it timely, there is a provision 
in the Budget Act that gives the chairman of the Committee on the 
Budget the authority to file a spending allocation which the Committee 
on Appropriations can then take and suballocate. It is section 
302(a)(5) of the Budget Act.
  So, Mr. Speaker, we have a procedure established not by rule of the 
House, not by a resolution, but established by law. It is statutory law 
of the United States giving the chairman of the Committee on the Budget 
the authority to notify the chairman of the Committee on Appropriations 
that this is his spending allocation which he can suballocate.
  So the first question is why did we not follow black letter rules? 
Why did we not follow the statutory law of the United States as 
prescribed in the Budget Act? Why do we bury in a MILCON rule this 
arcane provision that nobody would understand unless he followed the 
letter of the budget process? What is happening here? What is this all 
about? A totally nongermane provision buried for the first time in a 
construction bill. Why do not we simply have the chairman of the 
Committee on the Budget write the letter that is necessary?
  Then we notice there is a slight discrepancy, if we consider a 
billion dollars slight, because these numbers add up to $1.1 billion in 
budget authority and $1.4 billion in actual spending, we call it 
outlays, more than was provided for in the Kasich resolution, the House 
Republican resolution which narrowly passed the House just a couple of 
weeks ago.
  So the whole House spoke on this subject and passed a resolution a 
couple of weeks ago, and already we are beginning to unravel that 
resolution. We saw it almost unravel here on the House floor. And the 
last thing I said about it is we passed a resolution, but what have we 
passed? Because the black hole in the middle of it leaves as much 
unresolved as resolved. Here we begin to see one of the mysteries of 
the black hole in the middle of that resolution. We have to come out 
here and patch it up with a military construction spending resolution 
on the House Floor.
  But nobody should mistake the import of this. We have just raised 
spending and, therefore, I guess reduced the tax cut that the 
Republicans would make in their budget resolution by at least a $1.1 
billion. The resolution we passed, even though we had passed ISTEA, the 
renewal of the highway funding bill called T-21, the Transportation 
Equity Act for the 21st Century, even though we had passed that and 
even though that increased spending under the Balanced Budget Agreement 
above the Balanced Budget Agreement by $35 billion and that had to be 
accommodated, the budget resolution passed by this House totally 
ignored it and left it to be worked out later. And here we are working 
it out in this stealthy fashion. A billion here, a billion there, and 
pretty soon we are talking real money. This is some way to run a budget 
process.
  Mr. OBEY. Mr. Speaker, will the gentleman yield?
  Mr. SPRATT. I yield to the gentleman from Wisconsin.
  Mr. OBEY. Mr. Speaker, I agree with the gentleman that this is a 
stealthy process. Will this budget fly in the rain? I know the B-2 will 
not fly in the rain. Will this budget fly in the rain?
  Mr. DIAZ-BALART. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may 
consume.
  Mr. Speaker, I must commend my dear friends on the other side of the 
aisle for their extraordinary imagination and parliamentary ability, 
parliamentary ability which obviously is connected to imagination.
  A number of points have just been made that were fascinating. Number 
one, that a mysterious provision has been buried in this rule. That was 
said more than one. Very interesting. My recollection this morning was 
that the Speaker recognized me first and that I granted time to my dear 
friend, the gentleman from Ohio (Mr. Hall). The gentleman from 
Massachusetts (Mr. Moakley) was here on the floor first, so I granted 
time to the gentleman from Massachusetts and then the gentleman from 
Ohio has been controlling the time for our distinguished friends on the 
other side of the aisle.
  Now, when the Speaker recognized me and I made a brief statement this 
morning describing the rule, this open rule with which we are bringing 
the underlying legislation to the floor, it is not only in the rule but 
I mentioned on the floor and I will repeat, because we are still 
without a budget resolution conference report the rule provides that 
the allocations required by the Budget Act, section 302(a) of the 
Congressional Budget Act of 1974 that sets out the process requiring 
those numbers, shall be considered as made to the Committee on 
Appropriations.
  In other words, we are using last year's budget resolution numbers as 
adjusted for economic assumptions.
  Mr. POMEROY. Mr. Speaker, will the gentleman yield?
  Mr. DIAZ-BALART. I yield to the gentleman from North Dakota.
  Mr. POMEROY. Mr. Speaker, I have a question on that specific point, 
because the Budget Act provides a way for the appropriations process to 
go forward in the absence of a budget resolution. It requires a letter 
from the chairman, and that is specifically provided under section 
302(a)(5) of the Federal code.
  The Budget chairman is directed then to write a letter relative to 
the allocations and that allows the appropriations process to move.
  Will the gentleman tell us whether the chairman has written a letter 
as provided in the Budget Act?
  Mr. DIAZ-BALART. Mr. Speaker, reclaiming my time, we have complied 
not only with the spirit but with the letter of the law, the Budget 
Act. And I have in my possession, and I would be glad to give my 
distinguished friend a copy, a letter from the chairman of the 
Committee on Appropriations where the following among other things is 
stated:
  This procedure that we are using, that complies not only with the 
spirit but with the letter of the Budget Act, has been done in previous 
years when the conference on the budget resolution was late. And 
further, the chair of the Committee on Appropriations states if the 
conference agreement on the budget resolution should adjust these 
numbers that we are using in this appropriations bill that is brought 
to the floor today, the committee will adjust, the Committee on 
Appropriations will adjust its allocation and reflect such changes in 
further suballocations for later bills.
  But what I wanted to make reference to was in regard to the great 
imagination showed by my colleagues on the other side of the aisle when 
they talk about the stealth procedures that are being utilized. Stealth 
procedures. When I brought out, the Committee on Rules brought out in 
his rule in writing for everyone interested to read, but I brought out 
in my oral statement this morning opening this debate what we are doing 
fully in compliance with the Budget Act of 1974. So that is something I 
think is important to point out.
  Also, Mr. Speaker, I would like to point out that was stated more 
than once by our distinguished friends that we are raising spending. I 
remember I used to be in the State legislature in Florida and a lot of 
times when discussions would occur with regard to reductions in the 
growth of government spending, those would be called cuts.

[[Page H4846]]

  Here in Washington in the 6 years since I have been here, often we 
have seen that when reductions in the growth of government are referred 
to, they are called cuts. And yet the underlying legislation that we 
are bringing this morning to the floor, the military construction bill, 
does not reflect a reduction in the growth of government spending. No, 
no. It brings to the floor an actual cut in the budget of a billion 
dollars, from $9.2 billion to $8.2 billion.
  So what I am saying is obviously what we are seeing this morning is 
great talent, imagination, parliamentary ability. But I think that I 
certainly have never seen in the context of an open rule being brought 
to the floor for legislation so that all these amendments and all these 
ideas and all this imagination can be reflected in the context of an 
open rule, where every Member can come to the floor and debate ad 
infinitum if they wish in the context of our open rule, Mr. Speaker, 
which is something that was very rare when the other side controlled 
the majority, we are seeing all these signs of imagination. All of 
these signs of parliamentary ability. All of these signs of talent.
  Mr. Speaker, I would say to my colleagues on the other side of the 
aisle, why not wait and during the open rule which we are granting, 
which is something that they rarely gave to us, why not wait during all 
the time in the world that we are granting for all of this maneuvering 
on the open floor?
  Instead, they bring it during the open rule to obfuscate the fact 
that we are bringing an open rule. To obfuscate the fact that they 
rarely brought an open rule. To divert the attention of the membership 
to the fact that this Republican majority has a much higher percentage 
of open rules that it brings to the floor than the Democrats when they 
were in the majority.
  Mr. Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.
  Mr. HALL of Ohio. Mr. Speaker, I yield 5 minutes to the gentleman 
from North Dakota (Mr. Pomeroy).
  Mr. POMEROY. Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentleman from Ohio (Mr. Hall) 
for yielding me this time.
  Mr. Speaker, I would ask the gentleman from Florida (Mr. Diaz-
Balart), my friend, if he might take a question.
  Mr. DIAZ-BALART. Mr. Speaker, if the gentleman would yield, I would 
be glad to.
  Mr. POMEROY. Mr. Speaker, the question gets to that letter that I was 
asking about, and I did not want to pursue it on the gentleman's time, 
so he could make his point. But it really relates specifically to the 
legal requirements before this body under the Budget Act.
  Mr. Speaker, I ask the gentleman whether a letter had been submitted 
by the chairman of the Committee on the Budget, as required under 
section 302(a)(5) of the Budget Act. I reminded the gentleman that the 
budget laws for this country say that when there is not a budget 
resolution passed by Congress, the procedure provided in the statute is 
to have the Committee on the Budget Chairman submit a letter with the 
spending allocations.
  The gentleman said he had received a letter from the chairman, and 
quoted from it.
  Mr. DIAZ-BALART. Mr. Speaker, of the Committee on Appropriations.
  Mr. POMEROY. Oh, the gentleman received a letter from the 
Appropriations chairman.
  Mr. DIAZ-BALART. That is the letter that I have before me.
  Mr. POMEROY. Mr. Speaker, reclaiming my time, I appreciate the 
gentleman for making that distinction.
  Mr. Speaker, I have a follow-up question. The Budget Act does not 
provide or specify in any way about a letter from the Committee on 
Appropriations chairman. The procedure is that the Committee on the 
Budget chairman must submit a letter relative to the spending 
allocations so that the body may proceed.
  My question is has the Committee on the Budget chairman submitted a 
letter pursuant to the legal requirement of the Budget Act?
  Mr. DIAZ-BALART. Mr. Speaker, if the gentleman would continue to 
yield, I am not in possession of that letter. But what I do know is 
that the procedure set forth by the Budget Act has been fully complied 
with, and that the Budget Act contemplates the possibility that we are 
dealing with at this time. This is not the first time we are dealing 
with it and in that contemplation, if I may answer----
  Mr. POMEROY. Mr. Speaker, my time is running, so if the gentleman 
would get to the point, please.
  Mr. DIAZ-BALART. Then I cannot answer the gentleman's question if he 
will not give me the time to answer his question.
  Mr. POMEROY. Mr. Speaker, reclaiming my time, I think we have a 
filibuster going on. Reclaiming my time. Let me really take issue with 
the gentleman from Florida from the majority when he says that the 
Budget Act has been fully complied with. It has not.
  There is a procedure. The procedure is, first of all, the House and 
Senate have to pass a budget resolution by April 15. Obviously, that 
has not taken place. There is a fail-safe provision, because I will be 
the first to admit the Democratic majority routinely blew that April 15 
deadline. But the follow-up provision is that the Committee on the 
Budget chairman must submit a letter with the spending allocations. 
Here the gentleman from Florida says he has no letter from the 
Committee on the Budget chairman. He says that the act has been fully 
complied with, but he has no letter. That cannot be case.
  Mr. OBEY. Mr. Speaker, will the gentleman yield?
  Mr. POMEROY. I yield to the gentleman from Wisconsin.
  Mr. OBEY. Mr. Speaker, what needs to be understood is that this is 
not a rule on the military construction bill. This is a rule which 
allows this House to totally ignore the budget resolution that just 
passed 2 weeks ago on this and every another appropriation bill that 
comes to the House.

                              {time}  0945

  That is the problem, this is not a military construction rule. This 
is a rule that blows away the votes that my colleagues just cast 2 
weeks ago in favor of the Kasich budget, and my colleagues are trying 
to hide it.
  Mr. POMEROY. Reclaiming my time, I hope every Member watching this is 
aware that, in essence, this is nothing more than a flat-out House 
amendment of the budget we passed 2 weeks ago, an amendment adding more 
than $1 billion in spending, because the figures simply do not jive.
  This rule would allow spending at the rate of $531.9 billion, and the 
Budget Act is $530.8 billion, a difference of well over a billion 
dollars in budget authority, nearly $1.4 billion in budget outlay. What 
they are trying to do in the rule is essentially amend the budget that 
we had enacted just 2 weeks ago.
  My question, though, continues to be whether or not there is even 
legal authority for this provision because the Budget Act sets the 
rules. The rules are you have got a budget resolution. If you do not 
have a budget resolution, you have a budget chairman letter. We do not 
have the resolution. We do not have the letter. I seriously question 
whether or not this procedure comports with the Budget Act.
  I will be checking with the Parliamentarian in terms of whether or 
not a point of order might be raised in terms of whether this body is 
acting outside of Federal law relative to this budget issue.
  I do want to emphasize, as an aside, that this has nothing to do with 
MILCON. In fact, the gentleman from California (Mr. Packard) and the 
gentleman from North Carolina (Mr. Hefner) are known for their 
bipartisan fairness. As a minority member, I can tell you that the 
MILCON committee has always listened carefully to my concerns and been 
respectable to them.
  Mr. DIAZ-BALART. Mr. Speaker, I would simply reiterate that we are 
fully complying with the Budget Act of 1974 and all other laws and 
obviously the rules of the House.
  Mr. Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.
  Mr. HALL of Ohio. Mr. Speaker, I yield 5 minutes to the gentleman 
from Maryland (Mr. Cardin).
  Mr. CARDIN. Mr. Speaker, let me thank the gentleman from Ohio (Mr. 
Hall) for yielding me this time.
  Mr. Speaker, to my friend from Florida, if he wishes to respond, I 
will be glad to yield him some time. The gentleman brags that this is 
an open rule.

[[Page H4847]]

We have always had open rules on MILCON bills ever since I have been in 
this Congress. We have always had an open process on military 
construction. But the amendment in the rule that we are concerned about 
deals with budget allocations which has nothing to do with the MILCON 
budget.
  My question is, the gentleman is bragging that this is an open 
process that we will be able to offer any amendments that we want to 
once this rule is adopted. Once this rule is adopted, will I be able to 
offer an amendment that will adjust the budget allocations on the 
MILCON bill?
  Mr. Speaker, I yield to the gentleman from Florida to answer that 
question.
  Mr. DIAZ-BALART. The gentleman, as one of the most distinguished 
Members of this House and someone who is extraordinarily knowledgeable 
of the rules of the House knows----
  Mr. CARDIN. That I will not be able to offer an amendment.
  Mr. DIAZ-BALART. That the gentleman can oppose the previous question 
on this rule and make that point precisely to oppose the previous 
question.
  Mr. CARDIN. Reclaiming my time.
  Mr. DIAZ-BALART. Fine.
  Mr. CARDIN. For the rule that my colleagues brought out that they 
brag is an open rule that deals with the budget allocations for this 
country, if it is adopted, I am not going to be able to offer any 
amendments to adjust those budget allocations, because it is not even 
germane to the rule that is being brought out to consider the MILCON 
bill.
  Be honest out here as to how my colleagues are handling this. This is 
not the regular procedures of the House. The regular procedures of the 
House would be that we would adopt a budget resolution, and that would 
become the allocations. That is supposed to be done by April 15. My 
colleagues missed that deadline.
  So now the Committee on the Budget chairman is supposed to give 
allocations. The Committee on the Budget chairman has different views 
than the Committee on Appropriations chairman. So the Committee on the 
Budget chairman is not even here to defend these allocations.
  Let me just compliment my friend, the gentleman from South Carolina 
(Mr. Spratt), because he offered an alternative budget that dealt with 
discretionary spending which was in compliance with the Balanced Budget 
Act of last year.
  My colleagues are now accepting some of the allocations from the 
gentleman from South Carolina (Mr. Spratt), but our problem is how are 
we going to pay for it? Are we going to go into the surplus and use the 
surplus and not protect Social Security? Are we going to cut Medicare? 
How are we going to pay for this? These are questions we ask when we do 
a budget resolution.
  A budget resolution should mean something around here. But, no, my 
colleagues bring out a resolution from the Committee on Rules that 
changes the budget resolution that was passed on this floor. Then my 
colleagues say it is an open process, and we have no opportunity to 
offer any amendments to deal with it.
  So my colleagues just cannot get their act together on this budget. 
We understand that. My colleagues have got differences with their own 
caucus, but they are not willing to bring everybody into the process. 
If they did, as we did last year, we would be able to reach a 
bipartisan agreement and be able to move forward with the appropriation 
process. But that is not what they are interested in doing.
  Mr. Speaker, I yield to my friend, the gentleman from Wisconsin (Mr. 
Obey).
  Mr. OBEY. Mr. Speaker, the gentleman from Florida makes much of the 
fact that this is an open rule. I defy him to name one year when the 
Democratic Party, when it was in control, brought to the floor anything 
but an open rule on the military construction bill.
  Mr. CARDIN. Mr. Speaker, I am glad to yield to the gentleman from 
Florida if he can tell us when there has not been an open rule on 
MILCON.
  Mr. DIAZ-BALART. Mr. Speaker, what I am most impacted by at this 
point----
  Mr. OBEY. Can the gentleman name a year?
  Mr. DIAZ-BALART. If the gentleman wants to interrupt me before I can 
even answer my questions, then that is his prerogative. I am not going 
to be answering with constant interruptions. The gentleman thinks he is 
funny by getting up and saying, will you yield, and before I can even 
answer, he does not even allow me to answer.
  Mr. OBEY. The gentleman is avoiding the question.
  Mr. DIAZ-BALART. In the Committee on Rules, neither you there nor 
anyone else was asking to change this rule.
  Mr. OBEY. The answer is there was not a year.
  Mr. DIAZ-BALART. So the bottom line is this is an open rule, Mr. 
Speaker. We are proud of this open rule. It is a lot better than the 
other side did when they controlled the majority.


                Announcement by the Speaker Pro Tempore

  The SPEAKER pro tempore (Mr. LaTourette). The gentlemen will suspend.
  The time is controlled by the gentleman from Maryland (Mr. Cardin). 
The Chair would ask the indulgence of Members to speak one at a time 
and only when yielded to.
  Mr. CARDIN. Mr. Speaker, I appreciate that. Just to respond, on a 
military construction rule, I did not think it was necessary for me to 
go to the Committee on Rules to talk about budget allocations. I would 
have thought that the Committee on Rules would be dealing with military 
construction. I admit that was naive on my part. I should know that 
this Committee on Rules would do anything it wants to do.
  But let me tell my colleagues something, in the 12 years that I have 
been here, to answer the ranking member on the Committee on 
Appropriations, we have never had anything but an open rule on military 
construction.
  Mr. DIAZ-BALART. Mr. Speaker, I yield as much time as he may consume 
to the gentleman from New York (Mr. Solomon), chairman of the Committee 
on Rules.
  Mr. SOLOMON. Mr. Speaker, I have been sitting over in my office 
listening to what has been going on here. I have been a Member of this 
body for 20 years. I served 16 years in the minority. In those 16 
years, I have seen the Democratic majority in an arrogant way treat 
this minority like they were a piece of you know what.
  When we took over 4 years ago, when the American people decided they 
have had enough of this hypocrisy, we began to produce rules that were 
fair to both the majority and the minority in this House. Sure, they 
are not always open rules. They cannot be. You know that. You were in 
the majority for 16 years.
  But when I hear people come on the floor today and start criticizing 
this military construction rule, which is an open rule, and it has one 
little addendum that was not even questioned, but when I hear people 
come on this floor and start saying, oh, you are picking up last year's 
budget levels, let me tell my colleagues what would happen if we did 
not do that, Mr. Speaker.
  Suppose it were not in here. Do you know how the reverse of this 
debate would be going? The same people, the same Members would be 
saying, oh, you know, this is terrible. You Republicans have not 
adopted the budget yet. So we cannot go ahead with our appropriation 
bills. It is imperative that we go ahead right now and we pass these 
appropriations bills.
  So my colleagues would be arguing just the opposite of what they are 
today. The one thing that the American people will not accept is 
hypocrisy. I mean, stand up here and say it one way or the other, but 
do not say it both ways.
  Mr. OBEY. Mr. Speaker, will the gentleman yield on that?
  Mr. SOLOMON. I yield to the gentleman from Wisconsin, one of my best 
friends in this body.
  Mr. OBEY. Mr. Speaker, let me make perfectly clear to the gentleman 
from New York, there is nothing wrong with the rule on the military 
construction bill. The problem is the new budget resolution that my 
colleagues have slipped into it which allows them to spend billions of 
dollars more than they told the country they were going to spend just 
10 days ago. That is the problem. If the gentleman is looking for a 
definition of hypocrisy, I would suggest that maybe he ought to look at 
that.
  Mr. SOLOMON. Let me say to my good friend, he has a photostatic 
memory. I know him. I have served with

[[Page H4848]]

him for 20 years. He pulls things out of the air, and I say how did he 
remember that. Sometimes, most of the times, it is truthful. But let me 
do the same thing. I have got a little photostatic memory, too.
  Back on July 23, 1985, in H.R. 5231, there is the exact same deeming 
provision sponsored by the gentleman from Wisconsin (Mr. Obey). That is 
what the Committee on Rules did.
  Mr. OBEY. But what did it deem?
  Mr. SOLOMON. It deemed it. That is exactly what we are doing here.
  Mr. OBEY. The difference is what it deems, not whether there is a 
deeming provision.
  Mr. SOLOMON. Regular order.
  The SPEAKER pro tempore. The time is controlled by the gentleman from 
New York.
  Mr. SOLOMON. The gentleman knows that, if and when the budgeteers get 
together over in that other body, and they are a little more arrogant 
than the Democratic majority used to be over here, as a matter of fact, 
they are a lot more arrogant in most cases; but when they finally get 
together and they adopt the budget, I see my good friend from South 
Carolina rising, then we will revert right back to the same kind of 
caps that we had before.
  Can I go back to my office, I have not been there in 2 weeks, and try 
to get caught up on my work so I can catch a plane to go back to my 
district?
  Mr. SPRATT. Mr. Speaker, will the gentleman yield before he goes back 
to his office?
  Mr. SOLOMON. I yield to the gentleman from South Carolina.
  Mr. SPRATT. Mr. Speaker, I want the gentleman to go back to his 
office and answer his mail. We cannot meet with the other body until we 
have a conference committee. We passed a resolution 2 weeks ago. When 
are we going to conference? After the July 4th break. That is about 
July 15.
  Mr. SOLOMON. Let me say to my good friend, he knows there are 100 
egos over there. There are Republican egos. There are Democrat egos. We 
are dealing with all kinds of people, especially one man named Byrd 
over there. I mean, you know, he is some bird. He is a very nice 
gentleman.
  Mr. SPRATT. But we cannot deal with anything until we have a 
conference. We do not even have one established.
  Mr. SOLOMON. My colleagues know what is going on right now. I just 
wanted to set the record straight to my very good friends on that side 
of the aisle.


                Announcement By The Speaker Pro Tempore

  The SPEAKER pro tempore. The Chair would admonish all Members to 
avoid personal references to Members of the other body.
  Mr. HALL of Ohio. Mr. Speaker, I yield 3 minutes to the gentleman 
from Texas (Mr. Stenholm).
  (Mr. STENHOLM asked and was given permission to revise and extend his 
remarks.)
  Mr. STENHOLM. Mr. Speaker, we have had a fascinating discussion, and 
I want to emphasize, too, I have no problem with the rule on military 
construction. That is not the issue that has me upset and concerned 
today.
  I am glad to see the chairman of the Committee on Rules has stayed on 
the floor, because, with all of the statements that have been made 
about fair rules, I would like to take the opportunity now to ask him: 
Why did the gentleman deny the opportunity of the Blue Dogs to have our 
budget voted upon on this floor so that some of this might not have 
occurred today?
  Mr. Speaker, I yield to the gentleman from New York (Mr. Solomon).
  Mr. SOLOMON. Mr. Speaker, we have been explaining that for a long 
time. I brought the President's tax increases on this floor. There were 
about $78 billion in them.
  Mr. STENHOLM. I must reclaim my time.
  Mr. SOLOMON. Let me finish. The gentleman asked me to answer his 
question, I say to my friend.
  Mr. STENHOLM. Okay.
  Mr. SOLOMON. In other words, we gave an opportunity to the American 
people through their representatives, and that is exactly why the Blue 
Dogs were not made in order. We could have made in order 50 
alternatives if we wanted to. We asked our side not to do it. We asked 
your side not to do it. Let us have an up or down vote on the 
alternatives.

                              {time}  1000

  Mr. STENHOLM. Mr. Speaker, with all do respect, and I want to 
continue to yield to the gentleman, because he did see fit to give the 
CATs a vote. So what he just said is a little bit disingenuous because 
he allowed a Republican substitute but he chose not to let the Blue 
Dogs.
  Mr. SOLOMON. Mr. Speaker, if the gentleman will continue to yield, I 
will say to my good friend that, yes, we did allow the CATs and we 
allowed the gentleman from South Carolina (Mr. Spratt), too.
  By the way, I want to tell the gentleman from South Carolina that the 
deeming portion that was in the 1985 bill was offered by one of the 
most respected and admired members of the Committee on Rules, also from 
the State of South Carolina, Mr. Butler Derrick. I just wanted the 
gentleman to know that.
  Mr. SPRATT. Mr. Speaker, will the gentleman yield?
  Mr. STENHOLM. I yield to the gentleman from South Carolina.
  Mr. SPRATT. Could I just ask the gentleman, Mr. Speaker, in 1985, did 
the deeming resolution raise the allocation above that which the House 
had just approved 2 weeks before? This is $1.4 billion more than the 
whole House approved.
  Mr. SOLOMON. Well, if the gentleman will continue to yield, the only 
way to continue with the appropriation process so we do not get into a 
position of shutting down the government, the only way is to deem last 
year's figures, which is what we did in 1985. The gentleman knows that.
  Mr. STENHOLM. Reclaiming my time, Mr. Speaker, I think it is clear to 
everyone that we are completely and totally ignoring the rules of the 
budget process. That is a given.
  There is no problem with the military construction bill we will take 
up. It is an open rule, a fair rule, and one that can be discussed. My 
problem today, as the ranking member of the House Committee on 
Agriculture, I have some very strong concerns about the allocation that 
the leadership of the House, written in the Speaker's office, has given 
to agriculture. I am sure others will have the same.
  I have no problem with the total amount of spending. We have made 
that very, very clear. The Blue Dog budget, what we have before us 
today, is a cap on spending. I have no problems with that. But I have a 
problem with prioritization. Because, in my opinion, there are some 
real needs in agricultural research, in rural housing, in conservation 
programs, numerous cooperative State research, education, extension, 
that are being cut, that are not as high a priority as the legislative 
branch of government. Why we are increasing $100 million on the House 
of Representatives and then cutting in these areas of extreme 
importance, I do not understand, and we will have more to talk about 
that later.
  Mr. HALL of Ohio. Mr. Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman 
from California (Mr. Fazio).
  Mr. FAZIO of California. Mr. Speaker, we are not here to be critical 
of the military construction subcommittee. The gentleman from North 
Carolina (Mr. Hefner) and the gentleman from California (Mr. Packard) 
have done their job. We are not even here to be critical of the 
gentleman from New York (Mr. Solomon), who is just carrying the burden 
of leadership. What we are here to say is that this rule, uniquely, 
among the 13, is designed to pass a budget in real terms that will 
apply to the appropriations process, and nobody really knows that until 
we came to the floor this morning and discovered buried in this MilCon 
rule an increase in allocation of $1.1 billion in budget authority and 
$1.4 billion in outlays so that we could practically do, even to the 
degree we can, the business of this country.
  In fact, the Republicans had a breakdown in the budget process. They 
have had to promise the moderates, the gentleman from Delaware (Mr. 
Castle) and others, that they would not raise taxes; and they had to 
prove to the CATs that they would cut taxes $110 billion; they have 
told the veterans' lobby that they will not cut veterans' programs; and 
they have told the moderates they would not cut Medicare and Medicaid. 
At the same time, they have had to promise the gentleman from

[[Page H4849]]

South Carolina (Mr. Spence) they would increase defense spending.
  It does not add up, my colleagues. They cannot pass a budget 
resolution. I do not even know that Mr. Domenici and Senator Lott have 
reached any agreement on what the Senate ought to be doing. So what we 
are doing today is passing the budget resolution.
  Everyone ought to know that this is not a rule on military 
construction. In practical terms, it is a way to get by the inability 
of this majority to function; to pass a budget. They want to be all 
things to all people, and it does not add up. As a consequence, the 
appropriators have to proceed. Because, if not, we will end up shutting 
the government down again, having a continuing resolution and looking 
inept.
  So my colleagues should vote as they will on this rule, but should 
not be deluded into thinking it is simply a $1 billion cut in MilCon 
spending. This rule will define the entire appropriations process for 
the rest of this summer. If we are going to proceed on this basis, we 
might as well just forget the Committee on the Budget, forget the 
conference, that may or may not ever reach a conclusion, and simply go 
back to the system we had before the budget reforms of the 1970s.
  Mr. DIAZ-BALART. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may 
consume to say that, first of all, it is important to reiterate, 
because we have heard so often today it being alleged that we are doing 
something stealthily, that not only did we have a hearing and a markup 
in the Committee on Rules for this resolution that we are bringing to 
the floor today, in order to bring before us the underlying legislation 
of the military construction appropriations bill, but, today, in our 
presentation, our initial presentation, we talked about how we are 
complying with the Budget Act of 1974 through this procedure.
  And then with regard to the so-called unprecedented nature of what we 
are doing, my dear friend, the gentleman from California (Mr. Fazio), 
just said that we are, in effect, to paraphrase him, getting rid of the 
budget process. Our friends, when they controlled the majority in 1985, 
did this. Because at that time a conference report on the budget had 
not been passed as well. But they did not do it in June. They did not 
do it on June 19. No, it was July 24 that year that the budget process 
had not been completed. And they also brought a rule forward, in order 
to comply with the Budget Act, doing the same thing, deeming last 
year's numbers for this year's. So the reality is it has neither been 
done in a stealthy way, much less in an unprecedented way.
  But I want to point out one very important point, because speaker, 
after speaker, after speaker on the other side have mentioned they have 
nothing against this military construction bill. Oh, no, no, no, this 
military construction bill is very good, and the gentleman from North 
Carolina (Mr. Hefner), of course, has to be congratulated, and the 
gentleman from California (Mr. Packard). And speaker, after speaker, 
after speaker reiterate the fact they have nothing against the military 
construction bill; that it is very important to pass the military 
construction bill.
  Let us keep one thing in mind. If our distinguished friends manage to 
defeat this rule today, if our distinguished colleagues on the other 
side of the aisle manage to defeat this rule, what they will be doing 
is denying our men and women in uniform the military construction bill. 
And let there be no doubt that all this fancy debate and imaginative 
performance that we have seen here today will have, if it is 
successful, the outcome, the effect, of denying the gentleman from 
North Carolina and the gentleman from California the opportunity to 
come to the floor today and to present a piece of legislation which is 
very necessary to our men and women in uniform throughout this country 
and those who are serving in so-called peacekeeping missions like in 
Bosnia.
  So have no doubt, distinguished colleagues, as to what we are doing. 
This is not unprecedented. It was done in 1985, and not in June but in 
July. It was not stealthily done. It was publicly done in the Committee 
on Rules under the leadership of the gentleman from New York (Mr. 
Solomon). And again today we brought it out in our oral statement at 
the very beginning. What we are dealing with is bringing forth 
legislation that is critical to the national security of this country. 
So let us clarify and make clear exactly where we are and what we are 
dealing with.
  If we want to continue talking as though we were in the model United 
Nations, like I was in college, because that is what I have been 
reminded of today with some of the speeches on the other side of the 
aisle, very theoretical and nice sounding speeches, but we are not 
talking model United Nations or model parliaments like when we were in 
high school or college. This is the military construction bill of the 
United States that we are bringing to the floor today. It is about time 
that we get to this legislation, and it is about time that we pass it 
today, and that is why I urge passage of the rule and passage of the 
underlying legislation.
  Mr. Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.
  Mr. HALL of Ohio. Mr. Speaker, I yield the balance of my time to the 
gentleman from South Carolina (Mr. Spratt), the ranking minority member 
on the Committee on the Budget.
  Mr. SPRATT. Mr. Speaker, I yield to the gentleman from Wisconsin.
  Mr. OBEY. Mr. Speaker, let me simply say that the assertion of 
turning down this rule will deny anything to anybody in the military is 
absolute, total, flat nonsense.
  This military construction bill is going to pass with bipartisan 
support. The problem is that there is added an illegitimate and, in my 
view, strange and sneaky way around the Kasich budget in the rule, and 
that is the objection. So do not drag out the red herring about 
endangering military. That is absolute, total, bald-face nonsense.
  Mr. SPRATT. Mr. Speaker, let me make clear to everybody that this is 
not a tempest in a teapot. The money is not so significant in a budget 
of $1.7 trillion, but the precedent is vitally important.
  A few weeks ago this House passed a budget resolution, narrowly 
passed it, which provided $530,863,000,000 for discretionary spending. 
Budget authority. And $560,885,000,000 for outlays. Now, the chairman 
of the Committee on Appropriations has requested an increase of $1.1 
billion in budget authority and $1.4 billion in outlays. This procedure 
is not in compliance with the Budget Act.
  Section 302(a)(5) allows the chairman of the Committee on the Budget, 
when there is no budget resolution, to write a letter to the Committee 
on Appropriations and set a level so that the committee can then 
suballocate that overall level to 13 different committees and we can 
proceed with bills like this. But in this case it is not the chairman 
of the Committee on the Budget, it is the chairman of the Committee on 
Appropriations, and he is actually requesting more than the House 
approved.
  So in two important respects we are deviating from the budget 
procedures that we have established and followed for 25 years so that 
we can spend $1.7 trillion in a reasonably fair, orderly and systematic 
manner.
  What we see here is a continuation of a trend, a sort of defiance, an 
indifference to the established procedure for the budget process. This 
is the latest budget resolution that we have seen; the longest 
delinquency in producing a concurrent budget resolution in 25 years. 
When we finally, 2 months late, got the budget resolution to the House 
floor, it came to the House floor 10:30 p.m. and we debated it into the 
wee hours of the morning.
  And as we took it up, we noted that this budget resolution, which was 
a majority resolution, the Republican resolution, had a huge black hole 
in the middle of it. Because even though we had passed a highway 
spending bill that exceeded the balanced budget agreement by $35 
billion, and set new levels of spending for transportation in that 
amount, the budget resolution wholly ignored what the Congress had done 
and left unresolved exactly how those spending increases would be 
accommodated in the resolution. And then, when there were not enough 
votes to pass it, it unraveled still further on the House floor.
  This is no way to run a budget process, Mr. Speaker.
  Mr. DIAZ-BALART. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may 
consume.

[[Page H4850]]

  What we have been alleging and bringing forth, the military 
construction bill, is not bald-faced horsefeathers, or some other 
regional folkloric terminology the gentleman from Wisconsin is so good 
at using. It is a very serious matter, this legislation, and it is very 
important to the national security of this country.
  And these arguments, I think, we have refuted most effectively, in 
terms of this having been supposedly surreptitious or unprecedented. 
That is not true. It is not true, and I feel very proud of the 
gentleman from California (Mr. Packard) and of the chairman of the 
Committee on Rules in bringing forth this legislation under an open 
rule. And we have a very distinguished and admirable record of bringing 
forth important pieces of legislation, and most legislation, under open 
rules.
  Mr. Speaker, I yield such time as he may consume to the gentleman 
from New York (Mr. Solomon), the distinguished chairman of the 
Committee on Rules.
  Mr. SOLOMON. Mr. Speaker, let me just briefly say that, first of all, 
this rule is not going to be defeated because every Republican is going 
to vote for this rule, and I will see to it. That means it is going to 
pass. And there are also a lot of good Democrats that are going to vote 
for this rule, because it is absolutely imperative.
  Everyone knows, and the gentleman from Wisconsin (Mr. Obey) knows, as 
does the gentleman from Maryland (Mr. Cardin), that if we do not have 
this provision in the first appropriation bill coming up, it means a 
point of order lies against all other appropriation bills. So I will 
say to my good friend, the gentleman from Miami, Florida (Mr. Lincoln 
Diaz-Balart), it is not just the military construction appropriation 
bill, it is the veterans' bill, the Departments of Veterans and 
Housing, but it is every Federal program.
  Mr. Speaker, we have some people around here that just want to raise 
points of order against everything. And we all know that they would do 
it. It stops dead in its tracks every single appropriation bill for 
every Federal program that we have today. So Members ought to come over 
here, vote for this rule, and then vote for the bill. It is terribly 
important.
  When we talk about veterans or the military construction budget, 
right now we are in a dilemma, because the defense budget of this 
country, and I see the gentleman from Missouri (Mr. Ike Skelton), one 
of the best Democrats that ever served in this body over there, ranking 
member of the Committee on National Security, he knows if we stop these 
appropriation bills we are stopping research and development in our 
military and we are stopping procurement. These contracts have to go 
forward so that the young men and women serving in our military today 
have the best state-of-the-art that we can give them. God forbid if 
they are ever called into harm's way. And with what is happening in 
nuclear proliferation around this world, it can happen tomorrow, in 
Kosovo and other places.
  Let us use some sense here. Stop being hypocritical and come over 
here and vote for the rule.
  Mr. DIAZ-BALART. Mr. Speaker, I yield such time as he may consume to 
the gentleman from California (Mr. Packard).
  Mr. PACKARD. Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentleman for yielding me this 
time.
  I did not intend to speak. I thought this rule would go quickly and 
we would be done almost an hour ago. There is not anyone more 
controversial in this body than the gentleman from North Carolina (Mr. 
Hefner) and myself. I recognize that. But it was a surprise that we 
found so much controversy on this rule.
  My colleagues on the other side of the aisle cannot have it both 
ways. They cannot complain about the slowness of the process and the 
fact that we are not bringing the appropriation bills to the floor, and 
then proceed to prevent us from bringing our appropriation bills to the 
floor.
  We simply feel that we are following the procedures under the 
circumstances we find ourselves in. We are following the procedures to 
allow us to bring this and all the other appropriations bills to the 
floor as rapidly as we can.

                              {time}  1015

  I intend to be on the floor, the gentleman from North Carolina (Mr. 
Hefner) and I, next Monday, the very next legislative day. If we do not 
pass this rule, it obviously prevents us from doing so. If we do not 
follow that, then each appropriations bill will be delayed and then my 
colleagues will have another legitimate reason to say that we are not 
moving forward with the appropriating process and we are leading to a 
shutdown or a continuing resolution. That is what we heard today.
  All we are asking in this rule is to allow us to bring the military 
construction bill to the floor next Monday and do our job. We have cut 
this bill over 10 percent from last year's appropriated level. The 
President cut it 15 percent. We have had to add on in this bill to even 
make it so that we are doing some semblance of a job of taking care of 
our military needs.
  All we are asking at this time is that they allow us to move forward 
by passing this rule.
  Mr. OBEY. Mr. Speaker, will the gentleman yield?
  Mr. PACKARD. I yield to the gentleman from Wisconsin.
  Mr. OBEY. Mr. Speaker, I simply want to make it clear, we have 
absolutely no criticism of the job the gentleman has done. He has 
simply run into an accident that started out to happen to somebody 
else. That is the problem here.
  I want to make clear that when we do get to his bill, there will be a 
lot of Democrats supporting his bill, including this one.
  Mr. PACKARD. But the fact is, my colleagues, we will not get to my 
bill and the Hefner bill unless we pass this rule. We hope that all 
Members will help us do that.
  Mr. DIAZ-BALART. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may 
consume.
  I obviously support this rule. It is a fair rule. It is an open rule. 
It is important to bring the underlying legislation to the floor as 
soon as possible. The gentleman from California (Mr. Packard) has 
stated that we will have it on the next legislative day, on Monday, on 
the floor if we pass this rule. So I urge my colleagues to vote for it.
  Mr. Speaker, I yield back the balance of my time, and I move the 
previous question on the resolution.
  The SPEAKER pro tempore (Mr. LaTourette). The previous question was 
ordered.
  Mr. OBEY. Mr. Speaker, I ask unanimous consent to divide the 
question.
  The SPEAKER pro tempore. Is there objection to the request of the 
gentleman from Wisconsin?
  Mr. SOLOMON. I object, Mr. Speaker.
  The SPEAKER pro tempore. Objection is heard.
  The question is on the resolution.
  The question was taken; and the Speaker pro tempore announced that 
the ayes appeared to have it.
  Mr. OBEY. Mr. Speaker, I object to the vote on the ground that a 
quorum is not present and make the point of order that a quorum is not 
present.
  The SPEAKER pro tempore. Pursuant to clause 5 of rule I, further 
proceedings on this question are postponed.
  The point of no quorum is considered withdrawn.

                          ____________________