[Congressional Record Volume 145, Number 105 (Thursday, July 22, 1999)]
[House]
[Pages H6249-H6253]
From the Congressional Record Online through the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]




    PROVIDING FOR CONSIDERATION OF H.R. 2561, DEPARTMENT OF DEFENSE 
                        APPROPRIATIONS ACT, 2000

  Mr. SESSIONS. Mr. Speaker, by direction of the Committee on Rules, I 
call up House Resolution 257 and ask for its immediate consideration.
  The Clerk read the resolution, as follows:

                              H. Res. 257

       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. 2561) making appropriations for the Department 
     of Defense for the fiscal year ending September 30, 2000, and 
     for other purposes. All points of order against consideration 
     of the bill 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 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. 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 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. 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. Without objection, the gentlewoman from North Carolina 
(Mrs. Myrick) is recognized for one hour.
  There was no objection.

                              {time}  1500

  Mrs. MYRICK. Mr. Speaker, for purposes of debate only, I yield the 
customary 30 minutes to the gentleman from Texas (Mr. Frost) 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.
  Yesterday the Committee on Rules met and granted an open rule for 
H.R. 2561, the Fiscal Year 2000 Department of Defense Appropriations 
Act.
  The rule provides for 1 hour of general debate equally divided 
between the chairman and ranking minority member of the Committee on 
Appropriations. The rule waives all points of

[[Page H6250]]

order against consideration of the bill. It waives points of order 
against provisions in the bill for failure to comply with clause 2 of 
rule XXI, prohibiting unauthorized or legislative provisions in a 
general appropriations bill. The rule allows the Chairman of the 
Committee of the Whole 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 voting time to 5 
minutes on a postponed question if the vote follows a 15-minute vote. 
Finally, the rule provides for one motion to recommit, with or without 
instructions.
  Mr. Speaker, H.Res. 257 is an open rule for a strong, bipartisan 
bill. It is a bill that will allow us to rest a little easier at night, 
knowing that our national defense is stronger and that we are taking 
good care of our troops. I have always admired the patriotism and 
dedication of our military personnel, especially given the poor quality 
of military life for our enlisted men and women. But today we are doing 
something to improve military pay, housing and benefits. We are helping 
to take some of our enlisted men off food stamps by giving them a 4.8 
percent pay raise. And we have added $258 million for a variety of 
health care efforts. We are boosting the basic allowance for housing, 
increasing retention pay for pilots and prompting the GAO to study how 
we can do better.
  But along with personnel, we have got to take care of our military 
readiness. We live in a dangerous world, and Congress is working to 
protect our friends and family back home from our enemies abroad. We 
are providing for a national missile defense system so that we can stop 
a warhead from places like China or North Korea if that day ever comes. 
We are boosting the military's budget for weapons and ammunition, 
something they sorely need, and we are providing $37 billion for 
research and development so our forces will have top-of-the-line 
equipment to do their jobs.
  I urge my colleagues to support this rule and to support the 
underlying bill. Now more than ever we must improve our national 
security.
  Mr. Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.
  Mr. FROST. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume.
  Mr. Speaker, I rise in support of the Department of Defense 
Appropriations bill for fiscal year 2000 and in support of the men and 
women in uniform who serve this country. This is a good bill, Mr. 
Speaker. In the challenging world in which we live, this bill begins to 
bring military spending to levels that can ensure that our Armed Forces 
can meet and exceed the missions they are assigned.
  But, that being said, I am concerned that the Committee on 
Appropriations has chosen to delete funding for the procurement of the 
first six F-22 fighter aircraft. I fear, Mr. Speaker, that this pause 
in the program effectively kills the development of a fighter aircraft 
that is the key to the long-term defense of our Nation and our allies.
  The Air Force and the President are also extremely concerned about 
the action taken by the Committee on Appropriations. In a statement of 
administration policy delivered to the Committee on Rules yesterday 
afternoon, the administration made clear its opposition to the 
reduction in funding for the F-22. I would like to quote from the 
statement of administration policy: ``The F-22 is optimized to perform 
a crucial role, achieving air superiority early in any future conflict, 
even against adversaries equipped with the advanced weapons that will 
be developed in the first part of the next century. No other aircraft, 
including the F-15 or the proposed Joint Strike Fighter, will be able 
to fulfill that role.''
  Mr. Speaker, this weapons program is a critical component in our 
military arsenal. It will serve as an effective deterrent and will 
ensure our dominance in the skies. I encourage the Committee on 
Appropriations to reconsider its position and hope that when the bill 
comes back from conference that the F-22 will be part of the total 
package of national defense funding for the first fiscal year in the 
new century.
  Mr. Speaker, I would like to commend the committee for its dedication 
to ensuring that the issues relating to quality of life, benefits, and 
training for the soldiers, sailors, airmen and marines we depend upon 
for our national security are squarely addressed. Certainly this bill 
does not go far enough, especially when we are facing critical 
shortfalls in filling the ranks and retaining our skilled personnel. 
But under the budgetary constraints that currently exist, the committee 
has taken at least the beginning steps to address these enormous 
problems.
  This bill provides a 4.8 percent pay raise for all military personnel 
and contains increases in funds for the Aviation Continuation Pay bonus 
and supports the request for the Career Enlisted Flyer Incentive Pay 
program, all in an effort to address the major retention problems our 
Armed Forces are facing, especially in the Air Force.
  Given the monumental demands that have been placed on our military in 
the past decade, addressing quality of life issues should be of 
paramount importance. Our military is being stretched too thin, 
operations are spread around the globe, and the expectations of future 
threats will certainly not diminish. The Congress must meet our part of 
the bargain. We must increase incentives for military men and women to 
continue to serve their country by ensuring that they are paid at 
levels that are greater than subsistence living and that their benefits 
are competitive to the civilian sector.
  In addition, Mr. Speaker, we must provide the best equipment to get 
the job done. While we can be assured that today our equipment and 
technology and the training to go with it are superior to any other 
fighting force in the world, we must look forward to be sure that we 
continue to enjoy that advantage. This bill, in many respects, sets us 
on that path. Again, I am deeply concerned about the zero funding for 
the acquisition of the first six of the F-22 Raptor fighter aircraft, 
but I do support the inclusion of $351 million for the acquisition of 
15 F-16C fighter aircraft as well as $296 million for modifications and 
upgrades for F-16s currently in service. The bill also provides $344 
million for upgrades for the bomber fleet which includes the B-52, the 
B-1 and the B-2 which all proved their mettle during the recent air 
campaign over Kosovo and Serbia.
  The committee has provided $856 million for the acquisition of 11 V-
22 Osprey tilt-rotor aircraft, the vehicle which will carry the assault 
troops of the Marine Corps into battle if and when we are forced to 
send them there. The bill provides $2.2 billion for ammunition for all 
four services and, most importantly, provides $93.7 billion to operate 
and maintain the four branches of the armed services. This money will 
help replenish aircraft spare parts stores depleted from the prolonged 
operations in Iraq and Yugoslavia. It will address shortfalls in 
rotational training centers and depot maintenance. Operations and 
maintenance is the lifeblood of the machinery of the military and is an 
account that we cannot afford to ignore.

  But, Mr. Speaker, as the needs of our military continue to grow, as 
our obligations around the world continue to expand, we must find a way 
to fund the programs and weapons systems that will be required to meet 
these responsibilities. If this year's budget dilemma is any guide to 
what we will be facing in the next few years, I cannot understand how 
my Republican colleagues can in good conscience endorse a tax cut plan 
that will, in essence, eviscerate the military. That plan guarantees 
that there will be no money in the new century to adequately fund our 
military. I cannot support a fiscal policy that will expand military 
spending through deficit financing, and quite frankly there is no need 
to do so. The Republican majority is endangering our national security 
just when we have begun to restore the infrastructure, both human and 
machine, of our military.
  Mr. Speaker, I support this legislation and I support this rule which 
will allow the House to consider this important bill. But I cannot 
support the policy of the Republican majority that endangers the 
national security of this great Nation.
  Mr. Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.
  Mrs. MYRICK. Mr. Speaker, I yield 3 minutes to the gentleman from 
North Carolina (Mr. Hayes).

[[Page H6251]]

  (Mr. HAYES asked and was given permission to revise and extend his 
remarks.)
  Mr. HAYES. Mr. Speaker, I am proud to rise in support of the Defense 
appropriations bill. I commend the gentleman from Florida (Mr. Young), 
the gentleman from California (Mr. Lewis), members of the Committee on 
Appropriations and the staffs for their effort in crafting this bill. I 
support the rule. I encourage all of the Members to support this fine 
rule. The committee has put forth legislation that reflects the great 
support this Congress has for 1.5 million men and women in uniform who 
selflessly defend our freedom.
  Mr. Speaker, I am proud of our military personnel and their families, 
and I am honored to serve them here in Washington. Fort Bragg and Pope 
Air Force Base are in my district, and I am humbled every time I meet 
with any of the 45,000 dedicated Americans whose mission it is to 
maintain a strategic crisis response force, manned and trained to 
deploy rapidly anywhere in the world, prepared to fight upon arrival 
and win. This kind of dedication is unique, and I am pleased to support 
the rule and the legislation that will extend these American patriots 
an across-the-board 4.8 percent pay increase in basic pay.
  I must note, however, that I do take exception with the committee's 
decision to cancel production funding for the F-22 Raptor. As member of 
the Committee on Armed Services, I find it alarming that we would 
hastily turn our backs on a program which represents 15 years of 
research, development, rigorous testing and a $16 billion investment. 
For a bill that in all other areas represents the appropriate 
commitment to our military needs, this elimination in funding is a 
little shortsighted and I hope we will change that.
  Mr. Speaker, I look forward to returning to my district to tell the 
young men and women of Fort Bragg and Pope Air Force Base that their 
Congress has done the right thing and has served them well, as they 
have done for us time and time again.
  Mr. FROST. Mr. Speaker, I yield 4 minutes to the gentleman from 
Washington (Mr. Dicks).
  (Mr. DICKS asked and was given permission to revise and extend his 
remarks.)
  Mr. DICKS. Mr. Speaker, I want to rise today to remind my colleagues 
in the House of some of the past decisions that we have made and how 
effectively they were used in Kosovo. The House on four separate 
occasions over the last 4 years voted to continue funding for the B-2 
bomber, amongst a lot of criticism by the GAO and the press that the B-
2 would not work, could not fly in the rain, all kinds of criticism. 
But when the President called on it to be used in Kosovo, I was proud 
to see these young men fly these planes 31 hours over and back with 
several aerial refuelings, using JDAMs, a weapon that cost less than 
$20,000 per weapon, and do more destruction and really carry the air 
war at a time when many of our other aircraft could not be used because 
they require laser guidance. I think this is a testament of the 
commitment of this Congress, where year after year after year we added 
money to give the B-2 a conventional capability to improve its 
capabilities and then to see it work. I think it is a testament to the 
fact that there are people serving in the Congress who have many years 
of experience on the Defense Appropriations Subcommittee, on the Armed 
Services Committee, and they review these programs very carefully. In 
this case I was very proud when I went out with the President, with the 
gentleman from Missouri (Mr. Skelton) and two of the pilots came up to 
me and said, ``Congressman, if your committee hadn't added the money, 
$40 million for GATSCAM which gave the B-2 a conventional capability 
one year earlier than was expected, we would have not been able to use 
it in this war.'' JDAMs would have taken more time for training and 
getting it on the planes and we would not have been able to use it in 
this war.
  Mr. MURTHA. Mr. Speaker, will the gentleman yield?
  Mr. DICKS. I yield to the gentleman from Pennsylvania.
  Mr. MURTHA. Mr. Speaker, the gentleman can take full credit for that. 
If it had not been for his effort, that would not have happened.
  Mr. DICKS. I appreciate the comment by the gentleman from 
Pennsylvania, our former chairman and ranking member. It was my 
amendment, but I had bipartisan support. This has never been something 
that has just been my deal. It has been our commitment. The gentleman 
from Florida (Mr. Young), now the gentleman from California (Mr. 
Lewis), all of us worked on this. But what we showed is that there are 
some important things that we in the Congress can do to improve the 
security of this country. I was pleased, because I think in the early 
days had we not had the B-2 when we only had TALCMs and Tomahawks, if 
none of our planes could have worked, then we would have looked very 
foolish. There were some people who were critical of this war. It might 
have undermined even further the support in this country.
  I just wanted to make that report here today. The B-2 did very, very 
well. I appreciate all the people in the House who supported it, and 
those who were critical, I am glad we were able to show and prove in 
reality that it could stand the test. It did. It was because of the 
pilots, because of the people who do the low observability work, the 
mechanics. The turnaround time was like 16 hours per plane. Some people 
said it would take hundreds of hours. All of that proved wrong because 
we had great people at Whiteman doing a fantastic job, and it is a 
testament to the good work of the men and women in the military 
service.

                              {time}  1515

  Mrs. MYRICK. Mr. Speaker, I yield 6 minutes to the gentleman from 
California (Mr. Cunningham).
  (Mr. CUNNINGHAM asked and was given permission to revise and extend 
his remarks.)
  Mr. CUNNINGHAM. Mr. Speaker, for many of us defense has been our 
life, supporting both in combat and in the United States Congress. It 
is something that we believe in, we are entrenched, and I believe, as 
Ronald Reagan, that peace does come through strength.
  We met with the Prime Minister of Israel just days ago, and he 
stressed that a strong United States means a strong Israel, that a 
weakened United States military means that Israel is at great risk. But 
I would extend that beyond, to all of our allies.
  One of the lessons learned is that in Kosovo we can little afford in 
the future with NATO to fly 86 percent of the sorties and drop 90 
percent of the ordnance. We cannot do that and maintain our services.
  We have made a very difficult decision supported by the members on 
the conference itself, and I would say, first of all, I have got a very 
good friend in the gentleman from Texas (Mr. Sam Johnson). He is an Air 
Force hero. He still bears the scars from his torture, and he wants the 
same things that we do for national security in this, and the gentleman 
from Texas and I may disagree on how we get there, but I want to tell 
my colleagues there is nobody that I have more respect for. But let me 
give my colleagues my side of the story on the F-22.
  First of all, if I was an Air Force pilot, I would say to my friends, 
I would look forward to flying the F-22. Why? It is because there is a 
threat out there that the Russians have today that are developing in 
the SU-35 and SU-37. This is a fighter like we have never seen before. 
It is deadly, and the F-22 is scheduled for the year 2010 or 2005 for 
IOIC, which brings it into the fleet.
  But let me tell my colleagues that there is a threat today, a threat 
today that our men and women are going to have to face. This is not a 
fiction; this is not a vapor. I have flown these assets. I have flown 
aircraft against these assets myself. This is not secondhand. If our F-
15 drivers and our F-16 drivers and F-14 and F-18 face this threat, and 
I cannot tell my colleagues what this asset is because it is top 
secret, but if I was Speaker, I would demand that every single Member 
of Congress go through this briefing up on the fourth floor, and I will 
tell my colleagues why: because in the intercept against this asset; 
that is, beak to beak when one is coming head on with the enemy, our 
pilots die 95 percent of the time. That is today, not tomorrow. In the 
actual engagement itself, these assets kill me three times before I can 
bring a weapon to bear. That is today, not down the line. Thank God 
that this

[[Page H6252]]

asset was not exported to Kosovo because, do my colleagues know the 
standoff weapons that we had? Our aircraft were going to die; our 
pilots would have died.
  But where is that asset today? Russia is transporting this asset to 
China, to Iran, Iraq and North Korea, and take a look at where we are 
likely to get involved in the near future into a conflict today. I want 
our kids to be able to go up and fight.
  I am alive today because I had better training than the enemy, and I 
had better equipment. I think the F-22 in the future will be a great 
airplane. But it is only 5 percent tested. The cost of the F-22 is not 
all the fault of the Air Force. When we cut 750 aircraft to 339, our 
cost per airplane goes up because we pile all of that research and 
development. But that cost is nearing $200 million for each fighter.
  How many can we buy? I do not care how great the airplane is, and we 
have needs right now that the gentleman from Pennsylvania (Mr. Murtha) 
and the gentleman from California (Mr. Lewis) and the gentleman from 
Florida (Mr. Young) have identified that our kids to fight in a war 
tomorrow need the A9X.
  When the British were in the Falklands War, they did not aim nine in 
Lima in the procurement to get it a year later. They needed it now. We 
need the A9X now to be able to fight this asset. We need a helmet-
mounted site, not partially funded. We need it now. The radar that we 
will see through the enemy jammer so we can have some idea where he is 
before he kills us, we need it now, and we are taking the $1.8 million 
and spreading that down to those systems that are going to keep our 
kids alive today.
  I want General Ryan, who is a good friend of mine, Chief of the Air 
Force, to stand up and say: Mr. President, this is an emergency, and my 
colleague says Republicans want a cut. Well, we are there today because 
the President has gutted defense time and time again, time and time 
with Kosovo, with Bosnia, with all of the other places we have gone, 
have taken out of that already low budget.
  But the total money available for those systems is not there.
  Mr. FROST. Mr. Speaker, I yield 1 minute to the gentleman from 
Washington (Mr. Dicks).
  Mr. DICKS. Mr. Speaker, I just want to ask the gentleman this 
question: in the 10-year budget that we have been just discussing as we 
talked about this tax bill, the Clinton administration has $198 billion 
more in it for defense than does the Republican budget which starts 
capping in about 2004 and goes right through the last 10 years.
  Now I just want the gentleman to know we are always honest with each 
other. As my colleagues know, the President has increased this budget 
by 112 billion. The gentleman and I would like to see it be increased 
more. But we got to be honest here. The budget that my colleagues have 
got cut is $198 billion below the President.
  So those guys got a little work to do on their side.
  Mr. CUNNINGHAM. Mr. Speaker, will the gentleman yield?
  Mr. DICKS. I yield to the gentleman from California.
  Mr. CUNNINGHAM. First of all, does my colleague believe that this 
President on any budget that he has had in the outyears, always later, 
always later, when he is not even going to be here, he will beef it up? 
We need the $60 billion now, and the President continually cuts it.
  Mr. DICKS. Reclaiming my time just to say this.
  In the last 3 years the President's number for defense has been 
higher than the Republican number.
  Mr. CUNNINGHAM. We added $36 billion; that is negative. We have added 
$36 billion, and the gentleman knows that.
  Mrs. MYRICK. Mr. Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from New 
Jersey (Mr. Frelinghuysen).
  (Mr. FRELINGHUYSEN asked and was given permission to revise and 
extend his remarks.)
  Mr. FRELINGHUYSEN. I thank the gentlewoman for yielding this time to 
me. I rise in support of the defense appropriations bill for Fiscal 
Year 2000 and the rule.
  Mr. Speaker, the defense appropriation bill provides a total of $266 
billion for the Department of Defense while at the same time meeting 
the goals contained in the 1997 balanced budget agreement. With this 
bill we will help reverse 15 straight years of decreased defense 
budgets in real terms.
  As a new member of this subcommittee, I am particularly pleased with 
the growing investment that we make in our national security with this 
bill. Specifically, this bill provides $15.5 billion more than was 
appropriated in 1999. This money is desperately needed to keep our 
troops combat ready and our research and development efforts on track 
to ensure that our soldiers are equipped with the best technology 
available.
  I would especially like to commend my colleagues, the gentleman from 
California (Mr. Lewis) and the gentleman from Pennsylvania (Mr. Murtha) 
for their hard work and guidance throughout this entire year. This 
committee's leadership made the tough choices so that crucial funding 
is provided to protect our Nation and keep our troops safe and 
successful in the field.
  Mr. Speaker, Congress has no greater duty than to ensure that our 
brave young men and women who put their lives on the line for our 
country have the resources they need to do their job safely and 
successfully. In addition, Mr. Speaker, I thank the capable and 
knowledgeable staff of the committee who assisted all of us in putting 
this legislation together.
  I support this rule of this bill, Mr. Speaker.
  Mr. Speaker, I rise to support the Defense Appropriations bill for FY 
2000 and ask unanimous consent to revise and extend my remarks.
  Mr. Speaker, the Defense Appropriations bill, H.R. 2561, provides a 
total of $266 billion for the Department of Defense while at the same 
time meeting the goals continued in the 1997 balanced Budget Agreement. 
As a member of this Subcommittee, I am particularly pleased with the 
growing investment that we make in our Nation's security. Specifically, 
this bill provides $15.5 billion dollars more than was appropriated in 
1999. This money is desperately needed to keep our troops combat ready 
and our research and development efforts on track to ensure that our 
soldiers are equipped with the best technology available.
  I would especially like to commend my colleagues, Chairman Lewis and 
Ranking member Murtha, for their hard work and assistance throughout 
this year. This Committee's leadership made the tough choices so that 
crucial funding is provided to protect our nation and keep our troops 
safe and successful in the field. Mr. Chairman, Congress has no greater 
duty than to ensure that our brave, young men and women, who put their 
lives on the line for our country, have the resources they need to do 
their job safely and successfully.
  In addition, let me thank the capable and knowledgeable staff of the 
Defense Committee who assisted all of us in putting this legislation 
together.
  While the decisions made in this bill were not easy, I believe that 
they were the right decisions. With this legislation, we will help 
reverse 15 straight years of decreasing defense budgets in real terms. 
Despite the end of the Cold War, we still find American troops deployed 
all across the globe, from Eastern Europe to Asia to Africa. Mr. 
Chairman, I am proud of the job our troops have done and I am 
especially proud that this bill provides funding for the needed 4.8 
percent pay raise for our troops.
  H.R. 2561 also puts a great emphasis on the readiness and 
modernization of our military. With rogue nations like Iraq and North 
Korea developing advanced military technology, now is not the time to 
shortchange our nation's military readiness. Unfortunately, that is 
exactly what has been happening over the last several years. For 
evidence of this worrisome situation, we need only consider the effect 
that the Kosovo mission has had on our current obligations in the 
Persian Gulf and elsewhere. The Committee addressed this situation by 
adding over $2.3 billion for readiness shortfalls identified by the 
armed services. This funding will help secure the spare parts needed to 
keep our military fully operational as they move into the next century.
  Finally, let me say a word about the importance of research and 
development. As we enter the next century, technology, especially the 
digitalization of weapons systems, will play a critical role in the 
success of our troops in the field. This bill provides $37 billion for 
these activities in order to keep our technological advantage on the 
battlefield. Much of this important research is done by our civilian 
workforce, which by any account, is quickly aging. This investment will 
help to ensure that our technology continues to be on the cutting edge 
and it will ensure that new qualified researchers can be added to 
workforce in this important arena.

[[Page H6253]]

  Mr. Speaker, H.R. 2561 is a well balanced bill which funds the future 
readiness and modernization requirements of the DOD, while taking steps 
to ensure that the quality of life of our service members is maintained 
and enhanced. I urge all of my colleagues to support this bill.
  Mr. FROST. Mr. Speaker, I urge adoption of the rule, and I yield back 
the balance of my time.
  Mrs. MYRICK. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume.
  Mr. Speaker, I also urge adoption of this rule and support for the 
bill.
  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 resolution was agreed to.
  A motion to reconsider was laid on the table.

                          ____________________