[Congressional Record Volume 145, Number 65 (Thursday, May 6, 1999)]
[House]
[Pages H2815-H2823]
From the Congressional Record Online through the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
PROVIDING FOR CONSIDERATION OF H.R. 1664, KOSOVO AND SOUTHWEST ASIA
EMERGENCY SUPPLEMENTAL APPROPRIATIONS ACT, 1999
Mrs. MYRICK. Mr. Speaker, by direction of the Committee on Rules, I
call up House Resolution 159 and ask for its immediate consideration.
The Clerk read the resolution, as follows:
H. Res. 159
Resolved, That at any time after the adoption of this
resolution the Speaker may, pursuant to clause 2(b) of rule
XVIII, declare the House resolved into the Committee of the
Whole House on the state of the Union for consideration of
the bill (H.R. 1664) making emergency supplemental
appropriations for military operations, refugee relief, and
humanitarian assistance relating to the conflict in Kosovo,
and for military operations in Southwest Asia for the fiscal
year ending September 30, 1999, and for other purposes. The
first reading of the bill shall be dispensed with. Points of
order against consideration of the bill for failure to comply
with clause 4 of rule XIII or section 306 of the
Congressional Budget Act of 1974 are waived. 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
[[Page H2816]]
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 of rule XXI are waived. Before consideration of
any other amendment it shall be in order to consider the
amendments printed in the report of the Committee on Rules
accompanying this resolution. Each amendment printed in the
report may 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, shall be debatable for
the time specified in the report equally divided and
controlled by the proponent and an opponent, 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. All points of order against the amendments
printed in the report are waived. During consideration of the
bill for further 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 8 of rule XVIII. 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. During consideration of the bill, points
of order against amendments for failure to comply with clause
2(e) of rule XXI are waived. 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.
The SPEAKER. The gentlewoman from North Carolina (Mrs. Myrick) is
recognized for 1 hour.
Mrs. MYRICK. Mr. Speaker, for the purposes of debate only, I yield
the customary 30 minutes to the gentleman from Ohio (Mr. Hall), pending
which I yield myself such time as I may consume. During consideration
of this resolution, all time yielded is for the purpose of debate only.
Mr. Speaker, yesterday the Committee on Rules met and granted an open
rule for H.R. 1664, the Kosovo Operations Supplemental Appropriations
Act. The rule waives points of order against consideration of the bill
for failure to comply with clause 4 of Rule XIII requiring a 3-day
layover of the committee report and requiring 3-day availability of
printed hearings on a general appropriations bill and section 306 of
the Congressional Budget Act of 1974 prohibiting consideration of
legislation within the Committee on the Budget's jurisdiction unless
reported by the Committee on the Budget.
The rules provide for 1 hour of general debate equally divided
between the chairman and ranking minority member of the Committee on
Appropriations. The bill waives points of order against provisions in
the bill for failure to comply with clause 2 of rule XXI prohibiting
unauthorized or legislative appropriations in a general appropriations
bill.
The rule provides that before consideration of any other amendment it
shall be in order to consider the amendments printed in the report of
the Committee on Rules.
The rule makes in order amendments printed in the report accompanying
this resolution which may be offered only by a Member designated in the
report, shall be considered as read, shall be debatable for the time
specified, shall not be subject to amendment and shall not be subject
to a demand for a division of the question in the House or the
Committee of the Whole.
The rule waives all points of order against amendments printed in the
Committee on Rules report.
The rule waives points of order during consideration of the bill
against amendments for failure to comply with clause 2(e) of Rule XXI
prohibiting non-emergency designated amendments to be offered on an
appropriations bill containing an emergency designation.
The rule authorizes the Chair to accord priority in recognition to
Members who have preprinted their amendments in the Congressional
Record.
The rule allows the Chairman of the Committee of the Whole to
postpone votes during consideration of the bill and to reduce votes to
5 minutes on a postponed question if the vote follows a 15-minute vote.
Finally, the rule provide for 1 motion to recommit with or without
instructions.
Mr. Speaker, H. Res. 159 is a fair rule. It is an open rule that
permits any Member to offer any amendment to the bill as long as the
amendment does not violate House rules.
The President's military campaign in Kosovo has put many of us in a
tough spot. Like all Members, I support our troops, and I always
support a strong national defense. I have strong reservations though
about the President's decision to wage an ill-defined and possibly
disastrous war in Yugoslavia because this war is draining our military
resources, making it harder to meet threats in other areas of the world
such as Iraq and North Korea. Our rear flank is exposed, which puts our
military in harm's way.
We must replenish our military readiness and supplies. Our young men
and women in the military need and deserve that from this Congress.
This rule will allow amendments to express Members' concerns about
giving the President the tools to continue a never-ending conflict in
the Balkans.
Because this Kosovo spending bill is controversial, all Members need
to support this rule so we can have an open discussion on the floor.
Instead of closing down debate on this important issue, the Committee
on Rules has provided for a fair and open amendment process. Members
will have the opportunity to vote the Kosovo spending bill up or down,
if they wish to do so, but in an hour we are not voting on Kosovo
spending, we are voting on an open rule that allows the House to work
its will.
That is why we are here, to express our ideas and concerns and the
opinions of the people back home whom we represent.
I urge my colleagues to support this open rule which allows any
Member to offer any amendment as long as it does not violate the rules
of the House.
Mr. Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.
Mr. HALL of Ohio. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may
consume. I want to thank the gentlewoman from North Carolina (Mrs.
Myrick) for yielding me the time.
Mr. Speaker, this is a rule which will allow consideration of H.R.
1664 which is the Defense and Emergency Supplemental Appropriation Bill
for Fiscal Year 1999. The bill appropriates $12.9 billion in emergency
supplemental funds mostly for military personnel, equipment, pay,
retirement benefits and construction. As my colleague has described,
this rule provides for 1 hour of general debate to be equally divided
and controlled by the chairman and ranking minority member of the
Committee on Appropriations.
{time} 1015
Technically, this is an open rule. However, under the Rules of the
House dealing with emergency supplemental appropriations, virtually all
amendments, except cutting amendments, can be ruled out of order unless
the Committee on Rules grants a waiver. Despite the numerous requests
from House members, the Committee on Rules granted waivers for only
three amendments and one of those was by the ranking minority Member of
the Committee on Appropriations.
The rule does not open the process. This rule does not give the House
an opportunity to work its will. Therefore, I will oppose the rule and
I urge House Members to defeat it.
The emergency supplemental appropriation bill before us today is a
fat, bloated bill, with misplaced priorities. It puts buildings ahead
of people. It funds long-term investments but denies money to immediate
needs. This rule will not give House Members the chance to correct
that.
I am particularly disturbed because the Committee on Rules denied my
request to offer a bipartisan Hall-Roukema amendment to provide $150
million in much needed food assistance to the Albanian Kosovar refugees
and displaced persons in the Balkans.
Mr. Speaker, last weekend I went to Albania and Macedonia with a
House delegation of 20 members, led by Majority Leader Dick Armey. We
visited Stankovac 1, which is the largest refugee camp in Macedonia,
which at that time housed 30,000 who were forced to flee from their
homes in Kosovo.
[[Page H2817]]
This is only one of many refugee camps in the Balkans housing the
victims of President Milosevic genocidal campaign of ethnic cleansing.
Thousands more are arriving every day.
There is a critical need to feed these people. A report released last
week by the U.N. World Food Programme calculated that 1.4 million
refugees and misplaced people will need to be fed in the Balkans and
that report estimated the cost of feeding them over the next 17 months
to be almost $300 million.
The situation is getting worse. I quote from the World Food Programme
report: The situation for displaced and other people inside Kosovo is
certain to worsen because the entire food distribution system has
ground to a halt.
Without this money, many of the refugees face malnutrition or
starvation. If the United States shifted money from other emergency
feed accounts to handle this crisis, then we would have to cut our
assistance to southern Sudan, North Korea and the Horn of Africa,
Bangladesh and other crises.
The bill does include $566 million for general humanitarian aid but
this will be used mostly for medicine, shelter, sanitation. It is no
substitute for food aid. Astonishingly the administration did not
request any emergency funding through PL-480, which is the principal
initial food assistance program. This is a sorry oversight. The
Committee on Appropriations continued the glaring omission.
I note that PL-480 is one of the few forms of international food
assistance that directly benefits hurting U.S. farmers.
Mr. Speaker, we are told that the purpose of NATO air strikes, which
I support, are to protect the ethnic Albanians in Kosovo, but there is
no point to an air war to save the Kosovars if we leave them to starve
and to be malnourished in refugee camps.
Mr. Speaker, this emergency funding bill includes $156 million for
military recruiting and advertising. It includes $1.1 billion for
construction projects in Europe and Asia. We can, we must, include
money to feed the very people this bill is intended to help. Food for
the Kosovars is also an emergency.
Adding funding for PL-480 in this bill is supported by the Coalition
for Food Aid, which includes World Vision, CARE, the Catholic Relief
Service, Save the Children and other groups.
The failure of the world's biggest food producer to provide food to
refugees fleeing starvation and brutality inside Kosovo is astounding.
The Hall-Roukema amendment would have added about 1 percent to the cost
of the bill, about $150 million.
The recent reports of food shortages in Kosovo suggests that
Milosevic has added a new weapon in his campaign of ethnic cleansing:
Hunger. Just as we are fighting the troops with air strikes, we should
fight this new danger with food donations.
I want to thank my colleague the gentlewoman from New Jersey (Mrs.
Roukema) for her support of this amendment. Without money to take care
of the food needs in the Balkans, the bill is seriously flawed, and by
denying an opportunity to improve the bill this rule is fatally flawed.
I urge a defeat of the rule.
Mr. Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.
Mrs. MYRICK. Mr. Speaker, I yield 1 minute to the gentleman from
Florida (Mr. Young), the honorable chairman of the Committee on
Appropriations.
Mr. YOUNG of Florida. Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentlewoman from North
Carolina (Mrs. Myrick) for yielding the time.
Mr. Speaker, I merely want to rise in support of this rule. The rule
does provide for us an exciting day today in the House because there
are a lot of different issues that are going to be addressed.
In many meetings, group sessions and one-on-one meetings that I have
had leading up to today, I promised all of my colleagues that I would
ask the Committee on Rules for an open rule so that Members could offer
their amendments that would be germane and otherwise in order to the
bill and let the majority work its will. That is exactly what I did. I
did ask for an open rule. The Committee on Rules complied with that
request.
The rule today is an open rule and Members will have an opportunity
to offer their amendments, and I just ask that we support this rule and
get on with the bill.
Mr. HALL of Ohio. Mr. Speaker, I yield 5 minutes to the gentleman
from Wisconsin (Mr. Obey).
Mr. OBEY. Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentleman from Ohio (Mr. Hall) for
the time.
Mr. Speaker, I am going to vote against this rule. I had not intended
to. Yes, when we were in discussions with the Committee on Rules and
the committee leadership, I had the feeling that with the promises that
we had been given that we were going to see a new day in this House
with more bipartisan cooperation in the way legislation is brought to
the floor and that those promises were, in fact, going to be kept.
Then, after a series of conversations, apparently people behind the
scenes decided that that rule was going to be shaped quite differently.
Among the things that were done is that the committee put time limits--
under what is supposedly an open rule, the committee still put time
limits of 40 minutes--on the major amendment that we are going to be
debating on this bill.
That amendment is very complicated; yet each side will only have 20
minutes to debate it. The amendment is complicated enough it will take
10 minutes to explain it, which will leave only 10 minutes to discuss
the merits. That is not the way to debate questions of war or, for that
matter, some of the other serious issues that are in this bill.
Secondly, another amendment is being offered by the majority which is
paid for by hijacking items that were in our amendment to pay for the
items that we have listed in our amendment. In my view, that is an
effort to weaken political support for our amendment. I would simply
point out that since the majority has two-thirds of the staffing
available or more in this place, to put together their legislation, I
do not think they have an operational need to, in effect, steal or
highjack our amendments, but that is largely what has been done.
So it just seems to me that this rule is not what it was going to be
yesterday and for that reason I am going to oppose it.
I also want to say something else. I think that what happened on this
rule is symptomatic of what is happening on this entire bill. I did not
vote for the Rambouillet endorsement when it was on the floor.
I do not believe in giving any administration a blank check, but we
are now in a war and we have rampant misery which has been brought to
the world, to the refugees and to a lot of others. We did not start
that war; Mr. Milosevic did.
Now the question is: What will NATO and what will the United States
do about it?
I believe we ought to do everything necessary to win. I do not
believe the options for ground troops ought to be off the table and in
that I very strongly agree with Senator McCain. But to me, that issue
right now is beside the point.
The issue is whether this House can come together and debate one of
the most fundamental issues that will be before any legislative body,
in a manner which is both bipartisan and constructive. I do not think
this rule gets us off to a good start.
In my view, if we cannot play this issue straight we cannot play any
issue straight, with American lives on the line and with the future
credibility of NATO on the line.
What it seems to me is that we are being faced with a shifting
understanding of what the rules are supposed to be for debating this
legislation at the same time that we see spectacularly shifting
positions on the part of the majority.
Last week, the House voted against supporting the operation that is
now going on in Kosovo and yet this week we are now asked to more than
double the request that the administration made to finance that
operation. That makes no sense whatsoever.
I believe the reason that that has been done is that I believe last
week's amendment was clearly intended to simply pin the label on the
war of being Clinton's war, unfortunately politicizing the situation.
Now, this week I think there is an effort being made to in essence
pour all kind of money into this bill so we can free up enough room for
$3 billion
[[Page H2818]]
worth of pork in the next defense bill. I think that is illegitimate. I
do not think we ought to be treating a serious issue like this this way
and I would urge a vote against the rule because it is not conducive to
finding common ground on the most serious issue we face.
Mrs. MYRICK. Mr. Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from
Florida (Mr. Goss).
(Mr. GOSS asked and was given permission to revise and extend his
remarks.)
Mr. GOSS. Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentlewoman from North Carolina
(Mrs. Myrick) for yielding me this time.
Mr. Speaker, I rise in support of what I think is a very responsible
and open rule that gives Members a chance to consider a very wide
variety point of view on what is a critical issue, as we all know. I
cannot understand why we are having opposition to an open rule.
Mr. Speaker, U.S. operations in Kosovo have exposed the reality that
the fabric of our national security has indeed worn very, very thin, at
a time when it is still a dangerous world. Over the last several years,
the Clinton-Gore administration has demanded more from the military but
it has actually provided less resources for the military.
From Somalia to Haiti, Bosnia, Iraq, all those places, our troops are
being deployed overseas, more often, for longer periods of time, even
as our defense budget has been cut or has been held even.
Well, today the bill has come due. It is simply time to pay up. The
supplemental appropriation under consideration under the leadership of
the gentleman from Florida (Mr. Young) and the gentleman from
California (Mr. Lewis) will address the immediate needs arising from
the U.S. operation in the Balkans, but it will also shore up other
critical readiness areas that have been sadly depleted.
Mr. Speaker, last week's debate on the War Powers Act showed that
Congress was of many minds on the policy issue, but this debate today
is not about policy. I repeat, this is not a policy debate today. It is
about money. It is about resources to take care of our troops, and that
is something that Congress must pursue with a single-minded intensity.
Who among us would deny our troops in harm's way the best training,
the best equipment, the best odds to survive and to win with the least
casualties?
I know that some of my colleagues would like to deal with the policy
issue by refusing to fund military operations in Kosovo.
{time} 1030
They are absolutely right, that policy missteps by the Clinton-Gore
administration can have grave consequences, as we have seen vividly and
tragically in Somalia when the body of a U.S. soldier was dragged
through the streets of Mogadishu.
But failing to fund our troops' needs would invite the same kind of
disaster by leaving our men and women on the front lines without the
training and resources they need to protect themselves.
I encourage my colleagues to support this rule and vote for the
supplemental appropriations bill. Taking care of our troops and our
national security are among the most fundamental duties this body has.
Mr. HALL of Ohio. Mr. Speaker, I yield 5 minutes to the distinguished
gentleman from Texas (Mr. Frost).
Mr. FROST. Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentleman for yielding me the
time.
Mr. Speaker, the Republican Party has again demonstrated its
willingness to try to have things both ways. In some circles, it might
be said that railing against a military action and then doubling the
money to fight it should be called hypocrisy.
Mr. Speaker, I am at a loss to explain how a political party can, on
one hand, demonstrate its visceral hostility towards the President, and
then, on the other hand, turn around and double his request for money
for what they call Clinton's war. All I can do is shake my head in
disbelief.
Mr. Speaker, now is not the time for political gamesmanship. Today,
right now, our military stands in harm's way. Today is the time for
Congress to stand up and support them, and not play games with their
lives in order to advance a political agenda.
Democrats have, in spite of the divergence of views within our
Caucus, gone to great lengths to keep politics out of the debate about
Kosovo. How I wish I could say the same thing about the other party.
Mr. Speaker, in all likelihood I will vote for the supplemental made
in order by this rule. The rule itself is irresponsible and unfair. It
allocates some of the money voted in the original supplemental for
agricultural assistance, but it denies a separate vote on the disaster
assistance for Central America, and it denies a vote to the gentleman
from Ohio (Mr. Hall) on supplemental food assistance for the refugees
in Albania.
Mr. Speaker, Republicans are fond of chanting their mantra that the
President has underfunded the Armed Forces, but I would like to offer
an alternative, and more accurate, perspective. Last year the President
asked for $2.9 billion more for defense spending than either the Senate
or the House Republican budget resolutions provided. Two years ago the
President asked for $12.3 billion more. This year the President asked
for $104 billion more in budget authority and $198 billion more in
outlays for the next decade than did the Republican budget.
I may not have agreed with all the President's priorities, Mr.
Speaker, but the fact is that his budget requests have been
significantly higher than what the Republican Congress has agreed to in
their budget resolutions.
Mr. Speaker, the Democratic Caucus is divided about the amount of
extra military spending in this supplemental, but I would be hard-
pressed to find a member of our caucus who does not think that the
gentleman from Ohio (Mr. Hall) was treated unfairly last night by the
Republican leadership and the Republican members of the Committee on
Rules.
Mr. Speaker, no one in the House, no one, speaks with more moral
authority about the issue of hunger than does my colleague, the
gentleman from Ohio (Mr. Hall). Each and every Member of this House
knows full well that the actions of Milosevic in Kosovo have created a
humanitarian catastrophe that has sent Kosovar Albanians streaming out
of their homeland seeking safety in their neighboring countries of
Albania and Montenegro. Mr. Speaker, sadly, no one in the
administration anticipated this level of disaster.
The Committee on Rules last night had, in the words of the gentleman
from Ohio (Mr. Hall), the opportunity to do the right thing, but the
Republican majority took a pass. Does the hostility of the Republican
Party toward the President reach so deep that hungry children are going
to be made to suffer? Pardon the pun, but that should be food for
thought for all of us.
In conclusion, Mr. Speaker, passage of this defense spending
supplemental is so important to the Republican majority that this rule
also makes in order an amendment designed to appease the most
conservative wing of their party. That amendment, sponsored by the
gentleman from Oklahoma (Mr. Coburn), would in essence cut domestic
non-defense discretionary spending across the board by 5 percent.
So not only will the Republican majority not allow an additional $150
million in spending for food assistance for Kosovar Albanian refugees,
the Republicans are willing to cut other domestic programs to fund
supplemental military spending.
All I can do, Mr. Speaker, is shake my head in disbelief.
Mrs. MYRICK. Mr. Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from
Pennsylvania (Mr. Toomey).
Mr. TOOMEY. Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentlewoman for yielding time to
me.
Mr. Speaker, I rise in support of this rule for the Kosovo emergency
appropriations bill. It is an open rule. It is a fair rule. I urge my
colleagues to vote for it.
The Committee on Rules was given a tough task this week, and I
commend them for their hard work. In two important ways the rule
provides an opportunity to add a critical component to the underlying
bill: specifically, how to pay for it.
First, it protects a provision that I authored to force the President
to pursue NATO reimbursements for our costs in Operation Allied Force
and report back to Congress on its progress by September 30 of this
year.
[[Page H2819]]
Second, the rule gives priority to an amendment by myself and two
colleagues, the gentleman from Oklahoma and the gentleman from South
Carolina. Our amendment uses a combination of NATO reimbursements and
across-the-board reductions to ensure that the new, additional
emergency spending in this bill will be fully offset.
We give the President to the end of this fiscal year to secure NATO
reimbursements, and the remaining amount of offsets, if necessary,
would come from small reductions in non-defense discretionary spending
in the next fiscal year.
It is important to note that the amendment uses a sequester mechanism
already in budget law and would exempt several programs from any
reductions.
Again, Mr. Speaker, I thank the Committee on Rules, and I urge my
colleagues to pass this rule.
Mr. HALL of Ohio. Mr. Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman
from Maine (Mr. Allen).
Mr. ALLEN. Mr. Speaker, I rise in opposition to this rule. This bill,
along with last week's votes on Kosovo, reveal a fundamental flaw in
the majority party's vision of national security.
First, the majority of House Republicans voted against our military's
effort to stop genocide in Kosovo. Now that same majority uses funding
for the operation as an excuse for $6 billion in non-Kosovo military
spending. The majority whip calls us chicken hawks.
The other side complains that the administration's defense policy is
``doing more with less.'' But in rejecting Kosovo while giving the
Pentagon $6 billion more, these critics embrace a doctrine of doing
nothing with everything. In today's world, we cannot afford to do
nothing. With today's budget, we cannot afford to buy everything.
Republicans complain that our military's efforts to bring peace to
the Balkans undermines readiness. Ready for what, if not Kosovo? Ready
for the Soviet Union to spring to life, or Nazi Germany? Readiness is
not an end in itself, it is a means to an end, our military's ability
to carry out its mission, a means to ensuring our own security and
prosperity.
Ethnic conflict and regional instability, as in Kosovo, threaten our
security and prosperity. It makes no sense to build up fortress America
and sit inside idle while the world outside falls apart. Congress'
decisions on the military must reflect the world as it is and will be,
rather than a world of the past.
I urge my colleagues to support this needed funding for our troops
over Kosovo, and to resist playing games with it. We are better than
that.
Mrs. MYRICK. Mr. Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from
Texas (Mr. Paul).
(Mr. PAUL asked and was given permission to revise and extend his
remarks.)
Mr. PAUL. Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentlewoman for yielding time to
me.
Mr. Speaker, I rise in support of the rule. The rule is far from
perfect, but it allows adequate debate, and it will certainly allow us
who think that it is unwise to increase the spending to vote against
the spending. It certainly allows an opportunity for those who think
that we should double the spending to explain why we should spend so
much money on a war that we have not declared.
Mr. Speaker, we have to realize that this war has been pursued for
over a month. We have not appropriated the funds, so whether or not we
act today, the war will continue, unfortunately. The war has not been
declared, but if we go ahead and fund it, we become partners in this
war. I do not think that is a wise policy. We should not provide the
funding.
Mr. Speaker, there is a fallacy, that floats around this House that
says that if we increase the funding for the military, we will have
greater defense. That reminds me of the accusation from the right that
always challenges the left that says, if there is a social problem, all
you want ever to do is throw more money at it. The worse the problem
gets, the more money they want to spend on the social problem.
It seems like the worse our defense gets and the more we get into
quagmires around the world and the more we accept the policy of
policing the world, all we seem to do is come back and say, well, if we
just put more money in it, everything is going to be okay.
But if we are in a quagmire, if we are following a policy that is
unwise, the money might just make conditions much worse. I think this
is why we must defeat the spending on this program, because the
problems with what is happening in Bosnia and Kosovo and Iraq will be
compounded as long as the administration has the money to fund the war.
Yes, I am for a strong national defense, but if the policy is wrong,
it will undermine all the spending. The money will actually be wasted.
Funding encourages a policy that is in error. Funding is an endorsement
of the war. We must realize that it is equivalent to it. We have not
declared this war. If we fund it, we essentially become partners in
this ill-advised war.
Mrs. MYRICK. Mr. Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from
Indiana (Mr. Souder).
Mr. SOUDER. Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentlewoman for yielding me the
time.
Mr. Speaker, I rise in favor of this rule, despite my disappointment
with several of my amendments not receiving waivers.
There will be lots of seemingly contradictory statements made during
today's debate about this bill. Some will say this bill is about
rebuilding our military, which it is. Some will say it is about raising
the pay of our courageous men and women in service, which it is. Some
will say it gives the administration the dollars which not only will
escalate this war, but possibly expand it to a ground war, which it
does.
This modified open rule not only restricts amendments that would have
moved needed national defense funds to other appropriations categories,
but also restricts a number, under House rules, of amendments that
could have prohibited the buildup of the war, such as an amendment by
my colleague, the gentleman from Indiana (Mr. Dan Burton).
Overwhelmingly, the House had passed an amendment that would have
restricted a ground war, but it is not allowed under this bill, where
it would have had the force of law. Several amendments of mine that
would have reached back were also prohibited.
So while there are a number of waivers, there are not any waivers for
those of us who were trying to affect some of the ability of previous
funds to be moved around.
However, by allowing a modified open rule, it still gives many of us
the flexibility to offer amendments that are within the House rules
that will greatly restrict this Administration's ability to escalate
and expand this war, and possibly even force the needed peace
settlement that is pending. Our House vote last week clearly pushed the
administration towards that, along with the work of Reverend Jesse
Jackson.
This rule will most likely, and it should, pass. That is quite a
difference from the last few sessions of Congress. Quite frankly, in
the last few sessions when we had a controversial vote like this, many
of us were jammed. That resulted in us coming to the floor and taking
down a rule. I learned there were more woodsheds out in this floor than
I believed were possible. We were hauled in. We were told our party was
collapsing. We were told the whole Congress was going to fold. We were
going to lose control of Congress.
But in fact, a lot of this controversy inside our party has been
alleviated by our new Speaker, who has at least given us the
flexibility to offer different amendments. We as a party need to pull
together and pass this rule.
Mrs. MYRICK. Mr. Speaker, I yield 2\1/2\ minutes to the gentleman
from Indiana (Mr. Burton).
Mr. BURTON of Indiana. Mr. Speaker, I appreciate the gentlewoman
yielding time to me.
Mr. Speaker, I am going to reluctantly support this rule because it
does allow some amendments that will hopefully force the President to
come before this body and the Senate before he would send ground troops
into Kosovo. I am not sure it will do it, but I think at least it
expresses the will of the Congress that we would like for him to come
before this House and the Senate before sending our troops into harm's
way.
When President George Bush decided to go into the Persian Gulf, there
was great planning involved. We created an
[[Page H2820]]
army of 550,000 troops, and before we went in there was a very sound
battle plan. When we went into Kosovo, the Joint Chiefs of Staff
indicated to the President that they thought it was a mistake to start
bombing without more planning.
Nevertheless, the President chose to do it because he thought, in his
own wisdom, that he could end this thing in a short period of time. The
Nazis could not do it, and we have not done it in the last 30 days. Now
they are talking about sending in ground troops.
Hopefully, the discussions that are going on in Germany today will
preclude that possibility by getting other U.N. forces in there to deal
with this problem. But the fact of the matter is, proper planning has
not taken place.
{time} 1045
And as a result, if we send ground troops in there, we are going to
see a lot of young men and women come home in body bags or being
maimed.
What Nazi Germany could not do in years we are talking about doing in
months, and we are talking about sending 200,000 or 300,000 ground
troops in there. I tell my colleagues, in my opinion, the poor
planning, the ineffective leadership out of the White House, the poor
foreign policy will lead to a disaster if we do not take proper
precautions.
That is why this House, the people's House, and the other body needs
to be involved in the decision-making process. The American people need
to have all the facts before them through their elected
representatives. The case needs to be made before we ever send one
young man or one young lady into harm's way into Kosovo.
That is why I think it is extremely important that that point be made
today, that it has to be made clear to the White House, do not do this
without consulting with this body and the other body. Because if we get
into a ground war without proper planning, without all the people
working together, with the entire Nation behind it, it is a recipe for
disaster. We saw that happen in Vietnam when the country came apart.
We need proper planning. We need the leadership of the Congress to be
involved in the decision-making process as well as every Member here
voting on it. So I would just urge the White House that after we
appropriate this money today, and I am sure it is going to happen and
the rule will pass, I urge the White House to consult with this body
before ever sending one young man or one young lady into harm's way in
Kosovo.
Mr. HALL of Ohio. Mr. Speaker, I yield 5 minutes to the gentlewoman
from California (Ms. Pelosi), who is the ranking minority member on the
Subcommittee on Foreign Operations, Export Financing and Related
Programs of the Committee on Appropriations.
Ms. PELOSI. Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentleman for yielding me this
time; and I also commend Mr. Hall for his tremendous leadership.
As the gentleman from Texas (Mr. Frost) said earlier, no one has
greater standing in this body than the gentleman from Ohio (Mr. Hall)
when it comes to meeting the needs of the hungry throughout the world.
We are blessed to serve with him, and it is a privilege to call him
colleague.
Mr. Speaker, we are all very blessed to have the privilege to serve
in this body. We speak for the American people. They give us this
privilege, and we should deal with it responsibly. We owe them that, to
use our best thinking and our arts of compromise to come to agreement
on issues for America's future. At no time is it more important that we
put our partisanship aside, as when we put our children in harm's way,
our young people in harm's way, as they are now in the Balkans.
That is why it was so disappointing to see the rule that came to the
floor this morning. Last night I went home fully prepared to come in to
vote for the rule. We were told that we had bipartisan cooperation and
that it would be an open rule. Indeed, the distinguished chairman of
the Committee on Appropriations heralded it just that way in his
remarks just a few moments ago when he said this is an open rule which
will allow each Member to bring his or her amendment to the floor.
But what form do those amendments take? Would others consider it
their amendment if, as in the case of the gentleman from Wisconsin (Mr.
Obey), the Republican majority altered the amendment? Certainly they
knew the appeal of the amendment of the gentleman from Wisconsin. It is
responsible, it addresses our military needs, it recognizes the
increased cost of the huge number of refugees who unexpectedly
descended upon Macedonia and Albania, and it has the urgency of
Hurricane Mitch contained in it. It also addresses the needs of
America's farmers.
They knew that it was responsible. They knew it would appeal to their
Republican Members. That is why it was so disappointing to see the
illusion of an open rule with a rule that changed the amendment of the
gentleman from Wisconsin, co-opting the provision on agricultural
assistance and giving a piece of that amendment to one of their
colleagues, hoping to deflect support from the amendment of the
gentleman from Wisconsin by having a separate agricultural vote.
And what they also lost is the success of the Obey amendment, which
contains, again, $175 million in humanitarian assistance. Others have
said that there is disagreement about the policy and the war and the
air strikes and the rest. I myself support President Clinton's action
and commend him for his courageous leadership. But one thing we all
agree on is that the American people want us to provide humanitarian
assistance. They do not want to see the most vulnerable, the children
and the elderly, starving and freezing and going without the absolute
basic necessities. But unless we have the additional humanitarian
assistance, that will be the case.
In addition, in the so-called open rule, the gentleman from Ohio (Mr.
Hall), as was mentioned, was denied the opportunity to put in $150
million in additional food assistance for the refugees. How can this be
called an open rule if the gentleman from Ohio, who is on the
committee, has standing on the issue, is present at the table to make
his case, is denied the opportunity to present an amendment which will
give people food to eat? We are talking about the basics.
I was pleased to join our distinguished chairman, the gentleman from
Florida (Mr. Young), on a visit to the Balkans. We visited the refugee
camps. We can speak firsthand as to the needs there and to how those
needs have grown since the administration made its request to Congress.
I support the President's request, I support the President's support
of the NATO action, and I urge my colleagues to vote ``no'' on this
rule.
For some reason, between yesterday, when there was a spirit of
cooperation for an open rule that we could all support. That rule would
give the American people what they should expect of us, which is a
reasoned and informed debate on the actions in the Balkans and how much
we should be paying for it. Instead we are faced with the choice of
voting for twice as much money as the President asked for in his bill
on a policy that the Republican majority rejected last week. I guess
they are saying, ``We do not agree with you, but we want you to spend
twice as much money to pay for it.''
In sadness, Mr. Speaker, I urge my colleagues to vote ``no'' on the
rule.
Mrs. MYRICK. Mr. Speaker, I yield 3 minutes to the gentleman from
Texas (Mr. DeLay), and I would just point out that the amendment of the
gentleman from Wisconsin is printed in the rule exactly as it was
offered.
Mr. DeLAY. Mr. Speaker, I rise today in support of this rule. The
emergency defense appropriations bill is vitally important to our
national security, whether we agree with NATO's involvement in Kosovo
or not.
I have not been shy in stating my own opposition to the manner in
which the President has handled this situation, but this bill is about
supporting our troops and making sure they have the tools and the
training that they need to return home safely.
This bill is about making sure that our interests are secure on a
global basis, and right now I am disheartened to say they are not. In
fact, the Pentagon has told us that there will be a readiness crisis if
they do not get this funding by Memorial Day. If we ever had a military
emergency, it is right now, and that emergency reaches much farther
than the endless air raids going on in the Balkans.
Since we started talking about this bill a few weeks ago, I have
heard story
[[Page H2821]]
after story from my colleagues about the terrible situation our
military is facing, about soldiers who have never trained with live
rounds and pilots who are not getting flight time because there are no
spare parts to repair their planes. This kind of readiness crisis means
that our national security is presently at serious risk.
Now, this rule gives us an opportunity to mitigate that risk. We have
an obligation to support our troops and refurbish the military that is
currently being hollowed out to fund this war effort, and we have the
responsibility to do this as expeditiously as possible, which is
exactly what this rule does.
Let me say to my friends that I understand they may not agree with
the emergency nature of this bill. My colleagues may object to the war
in Kosovo on its face, as I do, or to using this kind of vehicle to
refurbish our stripped-down Armed Forces. But the process must not be
undermined.
I heard a lot last week about the votes we had on the floor over
Kosovo. Some folks said that we sent the wrong message to Milosevic.
Well, make no mistake about it, while I object to the President's
handling of this situation, I know our troops need our support now more
than ever. The Congress cannot abandon our troops just because the
President deploys them unwisely. We must support our troops even as we
disagree with the President. This rule and this bill will convey
exactly that message to Serbia and to the Americans stationed there.
Mr. Speaker, our troops are in harm's way. Our national security is
at risk. We have an obligation to give our sons and daughters
everything they need to protect themselves. We have an obligation not
to abandon our troops in the field. I urge my colleagues to support the
rule.
Mrs. MYRICK. Mr. Speaker, I yield 1 minute to the gentleman from Iowa
(Mr. Latham).
Mr. LATHAM. Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentlewoman for yielding me this
time; and I rise in support of the rule today.
It is very, very important that the farm credit provisions in the
amendment that we will be putting forward was made a part of the
discussion today, and the amendment will be offered.
As everyone knows, agriculture is in a very difficult situation
today. The USDA has not been able to get out the checks that are needed
as far as the disaster that we passed last year, the $2.3 billion.
We have a credit crisis in agriculture today, and we have to use
every possible means to make sure that we get credit to our farmers
this spring. They are in the field today. And we appreciate very much
the Committee on Rules allowing us to have this amendment be part of
the debate today.
Mr. HALL of Ohio. Mr. Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman
from Wisconsin (Mr. Obey).
Mr. OBEY. Mr. Speaker, I just heard the distinguished majority whip
indicate that we cannot abandon our troops in the field. I do not know
of a single person in the House who has any intention of doing that. I
do think that the interpretation of the vote that occurred last week
might, in some people's minds, be interpreted that way, but I certainly
do not know of anyone who intentionally intends to do that on either
side of the aisle.
I do want to take just a moment to discuss this myth that somehow it
is the Clinton administration which has created a military readiness
problem. I would point out that for 4\1/2\ years the majority party has
controlled this Congress. During that time it has added $27 billion to
the President's military requests.
{time} 1100
The Congressional Budget Office estimates that less than $4 billion
of that $27 billion went into readiness items such as operation and
maintenance. The rest of the items went into what are largely
considered military pork projects: the consolation prize destroyer that
was provided in the district of the majority leader in the other body
after his contractor was not selected by the Defense Department, the
decision of the Congress to fund 10 additional C-130s that the Pentagon
did not ask for rather than putting that funding into readiness.
Senator McCain himself has pointed out that there were more than
$4\1/2\ billion worth of pork items in the military budget last year.
They were in charge. If they thought there was a readiness problem, why
did they not put the money there rather than where they put it?
I saw a comment in the paper which said that the President was
responsible for the fact that there were not enough JDAMs. The fact is
they cut those missiles by 17 percent last year in the defense budget
they brought to the floor.
So let us keep the record straight.
Mrs. MYRICK. Mr. Speaker, I yield such time as he may consume to the
gentleman from California (Mr. Dreier), the distinguished chairman of
the Committee on Rules.
(Mr. DREIER asked and was given permission to revise and extend his
remarks.)
Mr. DREIER. Mr. Speaker, I rise in strong support of this rule. It is
an open rule, and I believe it is the right thing for us to do. I
congratulate my friend from Charlotte, North Carolina, for the very
able job that she has done under somewhat difficult circumstances.
Mr. Speaker, military policy by committee does not work. The
Constitution gives the President the clear authority to lead in
situations like today in the Balkans. It is now his responsibility to
ensure that our national interests are protected. Many Americans,
including Members of this body, have serious doubts about the
President's overall policy in the Balkans, whether vital national
interests were on the line at all in Kosovo. Others are deeply
concerned with the military strategy to date, namely, whether the
current air campaign can prevail.
Mr. Speaker, the price of failure in Kosovo is simply too great at
this point. American prestige and power, two of the most positive
forces for good in the world today, cannot be abandoned on the field of
battle. Developing and implementing a strategy that wins is the
President's first responsibility to the American people.
Congress must ensure that the resources are available to carry out
that strategy, as well as to ensure that our national security
infrastructure around the globe is able to protect our national
interests. This bill will, in fact, make sure that that is the case.
Now, as has been said, Mr. Speaker, this is, in fact, an open rule. I
do not understand how any Member of this body could conceivably vote
against an open rule. What we have done is we have provided the ranking
minority member, the gentleman from Wisconsin (Mr. Obey), the
opportunity to offer his amendment. It has not been changed. It is the
amendment that he submitted to us, and we have made that in order.
We also are addressing a concern that was raised about offsets, and
so we have made in order the amendment by the gentleman from Oklahoma
(Mr. Coburn).
We also are very concerned about immediately addressing the needs of
our agriculture interests across this country, and so we have made in
order the amendment by the gentleman from Iowa (Mr. Latham) which will
effectively deal with that.
Now, there are many people who also want us to deal with questions of
policy on the Balkans. This open amendment process ensures that that
will, in fact, happen. Under the open amendment process, we will be
able to consider the Rohrabacher amendment, the Souder amendment. Other
questions will come up as to exactly what our role should be and what
level of funding should be there for it.
So, Mr. Speaker, I urge a strong vote in support of this rule. It has
been carefully crafted. It should enjoy bipartisan support.
Mr. HALL of Ohio. Mr. Speaker, how much time do I have remaining?
The SPEAKER pro tempore (Mr. Gibbons). The gentleman from Ohio has 6
minutes remaining.
Mr. HALL of Ohio. Mr. Speaker, I yield 3 minutes to the gentlewoman
from California (Ms. Roybal-Allard).
Ms. ROYBAL-ALLARD. Mr. Speaker, I rise in opposition to the rule and
in opposition to what I see as the irresponsibility of the Republican
leadership in addressing domestic and international emergencies.
We want to send a strong message of support for our troops in Kosovo
today, and I hope that we will. But the Republican leadership has a
consistently poor
[[Page H2822]]
record of leadership when it comes to providing emergency assistance to
those in need.
During the last 2 years, Republicans have politicized emergency
appropriations bills and delayed, sometimes for months, getting needed
assistance to our farmers in California and North Dakota who have
experienced disasters. We all remember that in 1997, when the
Republican leadership sent the House home for the Memorial Day recess
while North Dakotans flooded out of their homes waited for relief.
Today, emergency assistance for our farmers and for critical Central
America has waited for months while Republicans use the Kosovo
supplemental appropriations bill as a vehicle for their political
agenda.
Mr. Speaker, these are the faces and this is the tragedy of what is
happening in Central America. But 6 months has passed since Hurricane
Mitch killed more than 9,000 people in Central America in the worst
disaster in 200 years. Thousands more are missing, and tens of
thousands have been left homeless. $5.3 billion in damage to this
region has wiped away 50 years of progress and returned the region to
the level of development it had in the beginning of the century. Yet
the Republicans continue to turn their backs on this tragedy in our own
hemisphere.
The emergency supplemental is critical to the reconstruction of this
region. If emergency aid is not received soon, it will lead to the
political instability of the region and cause mass migration towards
the United States. Responsible leadership means support for our troops,
and it means helping our farmers in need. But responsible leadership
also means that we must help those in the backyard of our own
hemisphere.
I support the Obey amendment as a common-sense approach to balancing
the many emergency needs that require our attention. The Republican
leadership must stop playing political games while American farmers and
our troops and our neighbors in Central America continue to suffer.
Mrs. MYRICK. Mr. Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.
Mr. HALL of Ohio. Mr. Speaker, I have no further speakers, and I
yield myself such time as I may consume. I will just make a few
comments in closing.
I believe that this bill is a fat one, and I think it is bloated, and
it has a lot of misplaced priorities. It technically is an open rule.
But because it comes under the emergency rules, it is very restrictive
because it gives tremendous power and ability to the Committee on
Appropriations to pretty much decide the fate for the whole Nation
here.
It is hard to get at this bill. The bill started at $6 billion, and
kind of overnight it went to $12 billion. And a lot of these items,
while important, are really not, in my opinion, high priority.
We have got an item in here for $156 million for advertising. Gee,
that is really a high priority and exciting, that we are going to give
$156 million to some companies on Madison Avenue to advertise, when in
fact we do not have any food aid in this bill.
And I find the fact that we cannot amend it to be not only
restrictive but very frustrating. Not only did our administration miss
it, but the Committee on Appropriations missed it. And because of that
and other restrictive rules, we must oppose it.
One of the things that I am reminded of and I keep in the back of my
mind is, when the delegation went to Macedonia and Albania this past
weekend, one of the things that we kept hearing from our own pilots was
the fact that as they flew over Kosovo it was like one great big
bonfire, thousands upon thousands of house fires were lit up as they
would fly over. It went for miles. The whole country was lit up.
In questioning the refugees in the camps that we were at, there was
not one family that I talked to that did not have their house burned
down, that were not robbed. And one man has caused this. We are not
there because we like being there. We are not there because we are
trying to feed people. We are there because one person caused a million
people to be affected in such a way that I find it unbelievable.
So when we get a chance to really fund our priorities, one of the
highest priorities of being able to feed people, we do not even have
that kind of food item in here.
So, for these reasons and others, the fact that it is so restrictive,
we must oppose this rule and, hopefully, defeat it and come back with a
much better rule and much better bill that really funds what the
priority should be according to this crisis that we are in over there.
Mr. Speaker, I yield back the balance of my time.
The SPEAKER pro tempore. The gentlewoman from North Carolina (Mrs.
Myrick) has 8 minutes remaining.
Mrs. MYRICK. Mr. Speaker, I yield such time as he may consume to the
gentleman from Illinois (Mr. Hastert), the Speaker of the House.
(Mr. HASTERT asked and was given permission to revise and extend his
remarks.)
Mr. HASTERT. Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentlewoman from North Carolina
very much for yielding me time.
Ladies and gentlemen of Congress, I rise in support of this rule and
the supplemental. I urge my colleagues on both sides of the aisle to
support it.
Let me just say, I have heard some rhetoric since I have been here
the last 10 or 15 minutes that there is not enough food aid or refugee
assistance in here. There is $600 million in here, as requested by the
President, for food and refugee assistance, $600 million. It is in the
line. It is there. And to say it is not is just purely false. It is
there. It was asked by the President. We put that money in.
But this vote today is probably one of the most important votes we
can take as Members of Congress. The issue is simple: Do you support
our men and women in uniform as they defend America's interests and
will you help us restore our Nation's defense so that our soldiers can
do their jobs?
Last week, the House spoke on the President's policies concerning the
engagement in Kosovo; and. Clearly, the House had some misgivings about
those policies. But today, let there be no mistake, the United States
Congress stands with its soldiers, sailors, and airmen as they defend
America.
Since the conclusion of the Cold War, the Federal Government has
steadily drawn down its defenses. In fact, this administration's
budgets have severely reduced those budgets of our military over the
last few years, and for good reason. The President did so under the
assumption that the world was a safer place in the absence of a Soviet
threat.
But, with Saddam Hussein, the instability in North Korea and with the
current situation in Kosovo, we have learned a valuable lesson: The
world is not a safer place. And, in fact, the threats from terrorist
nations have increased, and we must be prepared to defend America's
interests.
Announcement By The Speaker Pro Tempore
The SPEAKER pro tempore. The Chair will advise the persons in the
gallery to refrain from conversations. The speaker on the floor
deserves to be heard. Visitors are the guests of the House, and the
Chair requires your compliance.
Mr. HASTERT. Mr. Speaker, the money we spend today will start the
process of giving our soldiers and sailors and airmen the resources
they need to do their jobs. It will make certain that they have the
training they need to keep them safe. It will give them the livable
housing and reasonable wages. It will give them spare parts they need
to keep their planes in the air. And it will give them the munitions to
allow them to carry out their missions.
To my colleagues who disagree with the President's policy, let me say
simply, you had your vote last week. To my colleagues who want to pick
this supplemental apart, let me say that this, too, is important for
our servicemen and servicewomen to not be subject to partisan politics.
Now is the time to rise above the partisanship and vote for the good
of the country as a whole. To my colleagues who feel we should offset
this emergency spending, let me say that this bill represents our best
efforts to deal with the national emergency. And to my colleagues who
worry about the impact of this vote on the Social Security Trust Fund,
let me say, we will replenish that money to the Social Security Trust
Fund. We cannot replenish the lives of our soldiers that may be lost if
we fail to provide adequate resources to them in this time of need.
Let me state again: Every penny of Social Security receipts will be
credited to the Social Security Trust Fund.
Mr. Speaker, the American people expect the Congress to act
responsibly
[[Page H2823]]
when it comes to providing for our Nation's security. Let us not fail
them. Vote for this rule, vote for this defense supplemental, and vote
for our soldiers and sailors and airmen as they defend America.
Mr. HILL of Indiana. Mr. Speaker, we have committed our armed forces
to the conflict in Kosovo and now we must pay for it. This
unanticipated expense is a classic example of what constitutes
emergency spending. I have voted to support our troops and the NATO
operation in Yugoslavia. We need to provide emergency funding for our
troops in the field.
But the emergency appropriations bill that we will be asked to
support, today, spends more than twice the 6 billion dollars requested
by our military commanders for Kosovo. It will add billions of dollars
in spending for non-emergency items that should be considered during
our normal budget process.
As a member of the House Armed Services Committee, I clearly
understand that the military has pressing needs, including improved pay
and benefits for the troops, military infrastructure, equipment and
spare parts. I support a pay raise for the military, pay scale reform,
and retirement benefits reform. Our troops have earned a raise and it
is the right thing to do.
But I don't believe that an emergency supplemental should be loaded
up with spending that is more appropriately considered during the
regular budget process. I don't think that today's bill shows a
commitment to honest budgeting and spending controls.
{time} 1115
Mrs. MYRICK. Mr. Speaker, I yield back the balance of my time, and I
move the previous question on the resolution.
The previous question was ordered.
The SPEAKER pro tempore (Mr. Gibbons). The question is on the
resolution.
The question was taken; and the Speaker pro tempore announced that
the ayes appeared to have it.
Mr. HALL of Ohio. Mr. Speaker, I object to the vote on the ground
that a quorum is not present and make the point of order that a quorum
is not present.
The SPEAKER pro tempore. Evidently a quorum is not present.
The Sergeant at Arms will notify absent Members.
The vote was taken by electronic device, and there were--yeas 253,
nays 171, not voting 10, as follows:
[Roll No. 116]
YEAS--253
Abercrombie
Ackerman
Aderholt
Archer
Armey
Bachus
Baker
Baldacci
Ballenger
Barr
Barrett (NE)
Bartlett
Barton
Bass
Bateman
Bereuter
Biggert
Bilbray
Bilirakis
Bishop
Bliley
Blunt
Boehlert
Boehner
Bonilla
Bono
Borski
Brady (PA)
Brady (TX)
Brown (FL)
Bryant
Burr
Burton
Buyer
Callahan
Calvert
Camp
Campbell
Canady
Cannon
Castle
Chabot
Chambliss
Clement
Coble
Coburn
Collins
Combest
Condit
Cook
Cooksey
Cramer
Crane
Cubin
Cunningham
Davis (VA)
Deal
DeLay
DeMint
Diaz-Balart
Dickey
Dicks
Doolittle
Doyle
Dreier
Duncan
Dunn
Ehlers
Ehrlich
Emerson
English
Everett
Ewing
Fletcher
Foley
Forbes
Fossella
Fowler
Franks (NJ)
Frelinghuysen
Gallegly
Ganske
Gekas
Gibbons
Gilchrest
Gillmor
Gilman
Goode
Goodlatte
Goodling
Goss
Graham
Granger
Green (TX)
Green (WI)
Greenwood
Hall (TX)
Hansen
Hastert
Hastings (WA)
Hayes
Hayworth
Hefley
Herger
Hill (MT)
Hilleary
Hobson
Hoeffel
Hoekstra
Holden
Hooley
Horn
Hostettler
Houghton
Hulshof
Hunter
Hutchinson
Hyde
Isakson
Istook
Jenkins
Johnson (CT)
Johnson, E. B.
Johnson, Sam
Jones (NC)
Kanjorski
Kasich
Kelly
King (NY)
Kingston
Klink
Knollenberg
Kolbe
LaHood
Largent
Latham
LaTourette
Lazio
Leach
Lewis (CA)
Lewis (KY)
Linder
LoBiondo
Lucas (OK)
Maloney (CT)
Manzullo
Mascara
McCollum
McCrery
McHugh
McInnis
McIntosh
McKeon
Meek (FL)
Metcalf
Mica
Miller (FL)
Miller, Gary
Mollohan
Moran (KS)
Moran (VA)
Morella
Murtha
Myrick
Nethercutt
Ney
Northup
Norwood
Nussle
Ose
Oxley
Packard
Pascrell
Paul
Pease
Peterson (PA)
Petri
Pickering
Pickett
Pitts
Pombo
Porter
Portman
Pryce (OH)
Quinn
Radanovich
Ramstad
Regula
Reynolds
Riley
Roemer
Rogan
Rogers
Rohrabacher
Ros-Lehtinen
Roukema
Royce
Ryan (WI)
Ryun (KS)
Salmon
Sanford
Saxton
Scarborough
Schaffer
Sensenbrenner
Sessions
Shadegg
Shaw
Shays
Sherwood
Shimkus
Shows
Shuster
Simpson
Sisisky
Skeen
Skelton
Smith (MI)
Smith (NJ)
Smith (TX)
Souder
Spence
Stearns
Stenholm
Stump
Sununu
Sweeney
Talent
Tancredo
Tauzin
Taylor (MS)
Taylor (NC)
Terry
Thomas
Thornberry
Thune
Toomey
Traficant
Upton
Walden
Walsh
Wamp
Watkins
Watt (NC)
Watts (OK)
Weldon (FL)
Weldon (PA)
Weller
Whitfield
Wicker
Wolf
Young (AK)
Young (FL)
NAYS--171
Allen
Andrews
Baird
Baldwin
Barcia
Barrett (WI)
Becerra
Bentsen
Berkley
Berry
Blagojevich
Blumenauer
Bonior
Boswell
Boucher
Boyd
Brown (OH)
Capps
Capuano
Cardin
Carson
Clay
Clayton
Clyburn
Conyers
Costello
Coyne
Crowley
Cummings
Danner
Davis (FL)
Davis (IL)
DeFazio
DeGette
Delahunt
DeLauro
Deutsch
Dingell
Dixon
Doggett
Dooley
Edwards
Engel
Eshoo
Etheridge
Evans
Farr
Fattah
Filner
Ford
Frank (MA)
Frost
Gejdenson
Gephardt
Gonzalez
Gordon
Gutierrez
Gutknecht
Hall (OH)
Hastings (FL)
Hill (IN)
Hilliard
Hinchey
Hinojosa
Holt
Hoyer
Inslee
Jackson (IL)
Jackson-Lee (TX)
Jefferson
John
Jones (OH)
Kaptur
Kennedy
Kildee
Kilpatrick
Kind (WI)
Kleczka
Kucinich
LaFalce
Lampson
Lantos
Larson
Lee
Levin
Lewis (GA)
Lipinski
Lofgren
Lowey
Lucas (KY)
Luther
Maloney (NY)
Markey
Martinez
Matsui
McCarthy (MO)
McCarthy (NY)
McDermott
McGovern
McIntyre
McKinney
Meehan
Meeks (NY)
Menendez
Millender-McDonald
Miller, George
Minge
Mink
Moakley
Moore
Nadler
Napolitano
Neal
Oberstar
Obey
Olver
Ortiz
Owens
Pallone
Pastor
Payne
Pelosi
Peterson (MN)
Phelps
Pomeroy
Price (NC)
Rahall
Rangel
Reyes
Rivers
Rodriguez
Rothman
Roybal-Allard
Rush
Sabo
Sanchez
Sanders
Sandlin
Sawyer
Schakowsky
Scott
Serrano
Sherman
Smith (WA)
Snyder
Spratt
Stabenow
Stark
Strickland
Stupak
Tanner
Tauscher
Thompson (CA)
Thompson (MS)
Thurman
Tierney
Towns
Turner
Udall (CO)
Udall (NM)
Velazquez
Vento
Visclosky
Waters
Waxman
Weiner
Wexler
Weygand
Wise
Woolsey
Wu
NOT VOTING--10
Berman
Brown (CA)
Chenoweth
Cox
Kuykendall
McNulty
Slaughter
Tiahrt
Wilson
Wynn
{time} 1134
Mr. RUSH changed his vote from ``yea'' to ``nay.''
Mrs. MEEK of Florida, Mr. HOEFFEL, Mr. KANJORSKI, Ms. EDDIE BERNICE
JOHNSON of Texas and Ms. HOOLEY of Oregon changed their vote from
``nay'' to ``yea.''
So the resolution was agreed to.
The result of the vote was announced as above recorded.
A motion to reconsider was laid on the table.
____________________