[Congressional Record Volume 146, Number 37 (Wednesday, March 29, 2000)]
[House]
[Pages H1488-H1495]
From the Congressional Record Online through the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]




                ANNOUNCEMENT BY THE SPEAKER PRO TEMPORE

  The SPEAKER pro tempore (Mr. Nussle). The Chair will remind Members 
that although it is permissible to refer to the sponsor of a measure in 
the Senate, further personal references should be avoided.
  Mr. MOAKLEY. Mr. Speaker, I would like to make a personal reference 
to a dear friend of mine and yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from 
Massachusetts (Mr. Delahunt).
  Mr. DELAHUNT. Mr. Speaker, I thank my friend from Massachusetts (Mr. 
Moakley) for yielding me the time. And he is my dear friend.
  Mr. Speaker, it is very rare that I disagree with the gentleman from 
Massachusetts (Mr. Moakley). It would be remiss of me not to 
acknowledge the incredible work that the gentleman from Massachusetts 
(Mr. Moakley) did in Central America during the 1980s. More than any 
other individual in this institution, the gentleman from Massachusetts 
(Mr. Moakley) can take credit for saving thousands and thousands of 
lives, and I want to acknowledge that.
  But I do disagree. Colombia is not Central America. Colombia is not 
El Salvador. There was recently an article in a report called the 
International Policy Report. The agency or the think tank that produces 
this particular publication is headed by the former ambassador to El 
Salvador, Robert White, who, by the way, was discharged from that 
ambassadorship because of his position on the issue of El Salvador by 
President Reagan.
  Now, in fairness, I have to acknowledge that Ambassador White was 
clear that he disagreed with this particular package, but on other 
grounds. This article that was written by his associate I think 
captures the fact that the analogy between Central America and Colombia 
is inaccurate. I am going to read some excerpts:
  ``Colombia's decades-old conflict and the effort to end it are far 
more complicated than the violence El Salvador, Guatemala, and 
Nicaragua suffered during the 1980s.''
  Mr. GOSS. Mr. Speaker, I yield 1 minute to the gentleman from 
Massachusetts (Mr. Delahunt).
  Mr. DELAHUNT. Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentleman for yielding me the 
time.
  Mr. Speaker, he goes on to point out: ``Unlike the groups in El 
Salvador's FMLN and Guatemala's URNG, Colombia's three guerilla groups 
fight separately, violating human rights frequently, and are held in 
low esteem by most citizens. The paramilitary death squads operate in 
the open, resembling private armies more than shadowy

[[Page H1489]]

groups of killers and are somewhat independent of the Army.''
  ``Here in Colombia,'' he points out, ``the Government seeks to bring 
guerillas to the negotiating table.''
  He concludes by saying, ``With the exception of the United States, no 
foreign source arms or combatants. Instead, the drug trade pervades, 
corrupts, and finances all sides.''
  ``On deeper examination, this conflict, the western hemisphere's 
oldest and most brutal, bears only a passing resemblance to Central 
America.''
  The SPEAKER pro tempore. The gentleman from Florida (Mr. Goss) has 16 
minutes remaining. The gentleman from Massachusetts (Mr. Moakley) has 
19 minutes remaining.
  Mr. MOAKLEY. Mr. Speaker, I yield 2\1/2\ minutes to the gentleman 
from Massachusetts (Mr. McGovern), a gentleman who served with me in El 
Salvador.
  Mr. McGOVERN. Mr. Speaker, I rise in opposition to the rule.
  Mr. Speaker, I am deeply disappointed that the majority refused to 
allow debate on the amendment offered by the gentlewoman from 
California (Ms. Pelosi) to add $1.3 billion for drug treatment and 
prevention here at home.
  Sadly, Mr. Speaker, today we will be given very limited debate on a 
number of important amendments to the Colombia aid package. I strongly 
oppose this Colombia aid package as it is currently constituted.
  Like every Member in this House, I want to support President Pastrana 
in his efforts to negotiate peace and end the 40-year civil war and to 
provide economic development for the Colombian people. And like every 
Member in this House, I want to reduce drug use in the United States. 
Unfortunately, this package will not further either of those goals.
  The three antidrug battalions and related aircraft in this bill are 
to be deployed in two southern provinces to root out guerillas that 
have been entrenched there for 40 years and to eradicate coca crops 
grown by peasant farmers. The futility of spending billions on 
eradication should be obvious to anyone who has studied this question, 
whether those studies are from the Rand Institute or our own GAO.
  Coca is so profitable and easy to grow that short-term success has 
always proven an empty victory. Like mercury hit with a hammer, coca 
cultivation attacked in one location simply scatters elsewhere.
  So what will this package achieve? In the most violent country in the 
hemisphere, it will only result in more violence. It will ally the 
United States with the most brutal military in the hemisphere.
  Read the Human Rights Watch report. Read the reports of the Colombian 
Commission of Jurors. Read the reports by the United Nations and the 
OAS. They paint a picture of the Colombian military that I doubt any 
Member of this House would want to be associated with. And the victims, 
and there will be victims, will be the civilian population.
  My colleague, the gentleman from Massachusetts (Mr. Delahunt), says 
that Colombia is not El Salvador. He is right in one respect. Colombia 
is 20 times the size of El Salvador.
  I think one of the things that we need to do is we need to learn from 
the lessons of El Salvador and our other interventions in Central 
America to make sure we do not repeat the mistakes. Better to spend 
this money on treatment, education, and law enforcement here at home.
  The best way to fight drugs is to reduce demand, something this bill 
does not even attempt to do. Defeat this rule and rethink the Colombia 
package.

                              {time}  1130

  Mr. GOSS. Mr. Speaker, I am very happy to yield 2 minutes to the 
gentleman from California (Mr. Lewis), the distinguished subcommittee 
chairman of the Committee on Appropriations.
  Mr. LEWIS of California. Mr. Speaker, I thank very much the gentleman 
from Florida for yielding me this time. The rule includes an amendment 
that will allow as we have heard for additional $4 billion to be added 
to the defense accounts. It touches on many of the vital needs that we 
have in terms of our shortfall for our military. I will have an 
opportunity to discuss that later. I will not later be talking about 
the Colombia piece, and I would like to take just a moment to address 
that. I would like my colleagues to know that this brings back amazing 
memories. For the first time I ever focused upon my chairman the 
gentleman from Florida (Mr. Young) who today was presenting the 
difficulty of our schedules and our ranking member the gentleman from 
Wisconsin (Mr. Obey), it was at a time that we were discussing Central 
America and Latin America.
  In those days, the debate flowed around El Salvador and Nicaragua, 
Guatemala, indeed the voices that swirl around the ranking member today 
were very similar in those days. They were opposed to America's 
involvement in Central America. Today, we see that region thriving in 
democracy. Indeed today Colombia is asking us for our assistance with a 
very, very significant drug problem. Indeed, America cannot solve 
Colombia's entire problem; but they have asked for our help. It would 
be a grave error for us to make the same mistake that those same voices 
would have suggested we make in El Salvador in the country of Colombia. 
I urge us to pass the rule and indeed to support this bill in its final 
form.
  Mr. OBEY. Mr. Speaker, will the gentleman yield?
  Mr. LEWIS of California. I yield to the gentleman from Wisconsin.
  Mr. OBEY. I would suggest the gentleman go back and recheck my 
record. I did not oppose our efforts in Salvador. I opposed certain 
efforts that did not provide for the support of legitimate democratic 
forces, but I also supported funding for Salvador.
  Mr. LEWIS of California. Taking back my time, there is little doubt 
that the voices were almost identical to those that flow today 
regarding this issue. There is little question, they did not want us 
involved in El Salvador or Nicaragua, and there is democracy there 
today because of America's involvement in part. Colombia has a major 
problem. They are asking for our assistance. I would suggest that we 
provide them with a small amount of assistance.
  Mr. MOAKLEY. Institutional memory, Mr. Speaker, is the ability to 
recognize a mistake and make it again. Let us hope we do not do it 
again today.
  Mr. Speaker, I yield 2\1/2\ minutes to the gentleman from South 
Carolina (Mr. Spratt).
  (Mr. SPRATT asked and was given permission to revise and extend his 
remarks.)
  Mr. SPRATT. Mr. Speaker, last Friday morning, the House passed the 
Republican budget resolution by all of four votes. Today, the 
Republican leadership would override it because if this rule passes, 
the House will take up and probably pass a supplemental appropriations 
bill that, with amendments, will put spending $4 billion above the 
level assumed in the budget resolution we passed just days ago. And 
since the extra costs will not be offset, the budget surplus for 2000 
will drop and so will the budget surplus for 2001. Indeed, by our 
calculation, this supplemental, together with other activities, actions 
already or likely to be passed will reduce the surplus, the on-budget 
surplus for this year from $26.5 billion to $5.1 billion.
  Last week when the House debated the budget resolution, we predicted 
that over 10 years the Republican resolution which passed would spend 
all of the non-Social Security surplus and $68 billion of the Social 
Security surplus. We pointed out that the resolution assumed 
discretionary spending cuts of $117 billion over 5 years which we 
seriously doubted Congress would ever make; and if those cuts were not 
made, we predicted that you would have to dig even deeper into Social 
Security. We were convinced that eventually this resolution would be 
overridden as it was in 1999 and again in 1998, but we never thought 
you would do it in less than a week.
  Now, I readily agree that this bill contains funds for national 
defense and domestic priorities that are important. I am not contesting 
the validity of most of these items. I am making a stronger point. I 
think this supplemental shows that the budget resolution adopted just 
days ago contains spending levels for discretionary spending that are a 
sham.
  Last week you were calling for Draconian spending cuts. This week you

[[Page H1490]]

are calling for dramatic increases, $12.5 billion this year. Granted 
this spending is for this year alone but it is bound to have recurring 
effects. I cannot believe that what we are doing for Colombia will end 
this year. I cannot believe that the spare parts we are buying now for 
2001 will not be needed next year. We need a realistic budget 
resolution. I think we should hold in abeyance this supplemental until 
we come back from conference with a budget resolution that is realistic 
and it recognizes the costs that we are surely going to incur as this 
supplemental points out.
  Mr. MOAKLEY. Mr. Speaker, I yield 1\1/2\ minutes to the gentlewoman 
from California (Mrs. Capps).
  Mrs. CAPPS. Mr. Speaker, I thank my colleague for yielding me this 
time. I rise in strong opposition to this rule. The emergency spending 
bill appropriates $9 billion. However, this rule does not make in order 
the Wu-Kuykendall-Capps amendment to provide just $14.2 million to help 
hard-pressed West Coast fishermen.
  Pacific Coast fishermen have had their livelihood restricted by the 
Federal Government's effort to restore the West Coast groundfish 
fishery. This is costing hardworking men and women millions of dollars 
in lost income. It is hurting communities up and down the coast like 
Morro Bay and Avila Beach in my district.
  The governors of California, Oregon, and Washington have requested 
disaster assistance for fishing communities. The administration 
recognized their need and asked for this funding. The money would fund 
important research and stock assessment of the fishery, it would allow 
for the buyback of permits and boats, and it would help communities 
cope with the loss of a big industry.
  The fishing men and women in my district would rather be on the water 
hauling in their catch. But if we are going to keep them off their 
boats, it is imperative that we help them to feed their families. I am 
disappointed in this rule. I urge a ``no'' vote.
  Mr. GOSS. Mr. Speaker, I yield 3 minutes to the distinguished 
gentleman from California (Mr. Hunter).
  Mr. HUNTER. Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentleman for yielding me this 
time. Let me give a response to the gentleman from South Carolina (Mr. 
Spratt) with respect to the dollars that are in this supplemental under 
the defense heading.
  They are there simply because your Marines, your Air Force, your 
Army, your Navy needs them. Every time the Commandant of the Marine 
Corps addresses Congress in any forum, he always says, ``This is your 
Marine Corps.'' And in a very true sense, it is your Marine Corps and 
all the rest of the services. As my friend the gentleman from South 
Carolina knows, and I know that is the reason the gentleman from 
Missouri (Mr. Skelton) is going to join with me and a number of other 
people in supporting the Lewis-Spence amendment to bring in about 4 
billion extra dollars in spare parts, in safety fixes, in emergency 
fixes on the military health care system and a number of other areas 
where there truly is an emergency.
  That is why Democrats and Republicans have very carefully asked the 
services when they came before us, did the $305 billion defense budget 
submitted by the administration, does that take care of what your 
troops need, and they told us no. We said, be specific. And they 
outlined $15 billion worth of unfunded requirements; things we had to 
do.
  Let me tell my colleagues why they outlined them to us. They outlined 
them to us because our planes in many cases are not able to get off the 
ground and go do the mission. The mission capability is dropping like a 
rock. That means your plane cannot start up on the tarmac or on a 
carrier deck, go off, do its mission, and return.
  They brought them to us because, in my estimation, the safety record 
is going down in the services. Eighty crashes of military aircraft in 
1998 and 1999, 80 crashes, 90 dead as a result of those crashes. We 
have got old platforms. We have got platforms without spare parts.
  The Air Force is 1,200 pilots short. Some of the money in this 
amendment, the Spence-Lewis amendment, requests extra money for 
recruiting, for retention, to keep skilled people in the services. This 
is probably our most important job, keeping our Nation secure. This 
amendment gives about 25 percent of what our services told us they have 
to have to keep the wheels turning, to keep this reduced force going, 
to keep the equipment repaired, to keep the spares coming.
  When we went to Kosovo, Air Force readiness went down 50 percent 
Stateside because we had to move all the spare parts and all the 
available mechanics because we did not have very many of them, we had 
to move them into theater. So we dropped mission capability 50 percent 
in the units that were remaining. We are stretched very thin. Please 
work with us. Moderates, liberals, conservatives, vote for the Spence-
Lewis amendment. It helps America's people in uniform.
  Mr. MOAKLEY. Mr. Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the gentlewoman from 
Michigan (Ms. Kilpatrick).
  (Ms. KILPATRICK asked and was given permission to revise and extend 
her remarks.)
  Ms. KILPATRICK. Mr. Speaker, I rise in strong opposition to this 
rule, a rule that will not allow Democrats by and large to offer 
amendments on this most important supplemental appropriation, the first 
one, I might add, for the 21st century. Eighty percent of the 
amendments are by the majority party. We were not able to offer many.
  One of the most important amendments is an amendment that would 
provide treatment on demand for those Americans who found themselves 
unfortunately addicted to drugs, drugs I might add that more than any 
other country in the world Colombia supplies the heroin and the cocaine 
that has infested our families and our neighborhoods across America.
  In this supplemental, we are providing $1.7 billion to Colombia and 
not a penny for drug treatment. I think it is horrible that the 
amendment by the gentlewoman from California (Ms. Pelosi) was not 
allowed, and I think we should vote against this rule.
  Additionally, Mozambique. We are told that the assessment must be 
made for Mozambique. The assessment I understand will be done on 
Friday. I offered an amendment in committee, $60 million, $20 million 
for child survival, $20 million for development assistance, $20 million 
for international disaster relief, but withdrew the amendment because 
they said we had to have the assessment.
  The chairman of the full committee, the gentleman from Florida (Mr. 
Young), and the chairman of the subcommittee, the gentleman from 
Alabama (Mr. Callahan), have agreed that this money should come forth 
and the money is in the accounts now to be released for Mozambique. 
Release the money. It ought to be a part of the rule. We ought to be 
able to debate it. We are not able at this time.
  Treat those Americans who are addicted to much of the drugs that come 
from Colombia. We are not allowed to debate; we are not allowed to 
offer it. It is a bad rule. Vote against it.
  Mr. GOSS. Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to yield 2 minutes to the 
distinguished gentleman from the Commonwealth of Pennsylvania (Mr. 
Goodling).
  (Mr. GOODLING asked and was given permission to revise and extend his 
remarks.)
  Mr. GOODLING. Mr. Speaker, in this supplemental, there is $40 million 
to deal with the citrus canker problem in Florida, a problem that the 
Department of Agriculture said could have been handled probably with $5 
million had they jumped on it immediately.
  The Department of Agriculture now is saying if we do not jump on the 
plum pox virus problem again, we are not going to have a $5 million 
problem, we are going to have a several billion dollar problem. This 
citrus problem is probably going to cost at least $200 million.
  What has happened in Europe and what has happened in Spain and Chile 
is that their stone fruit crop was wiped out. If you happen to produce 
peaches, apricots, plums, cherries, almonds, avocados in your 
particular districts, they will be wiped out.
  I have four orchards in my district now. They had to destroy the 
entire orchard. You cannot destroy the infected tree. You have to 
destroy the entire orchard. They waited 10 years to get profit, all of 
a sudden they must burn that crop and must wait 2 years then to replant 
the trees and then wait another 5

[[Page H1491]]

years to get any profit from that production. The Department of 
Agriculture says it spends $6 million now to stop it in its tracks or 
let it spread through Washington, California, Michigan, Maryland, 
Pennsylvania, South Carolina, Georgia and wherever else they grow 
peaches, prunes, apricots, avocados, et cetera.
  And they have asked for the money, because they realize that it is 
their watch and if they do not stop it now, it becomes a billion-dollar 
problem. Unfortunately, OMB has not released the money as they have not 
released the $40 million for the citrus problem in Florida.

                              {time}  1145

  So I hope that everybody understands, we will pay $6 million this 
year, or we will pay billions and billions of dollars in the future 
when many of my colleagues will still be in the Congress of the United 
States. So I would hope my colleagues would come back with an 
appropriation to allow them to wipe out this virus immediately, rather 
than see it spread all over the United States.
  Mr. MOAKLEY. Mr. Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from 
Oregon (Mr. Wu).
  Mr. WU. Mr. Speaker, I ask my colleagues to vote against the rule 
today. We appeared before the Committee on Rules late last night with a 
bipartisan, commonsense approach to a real emergency, a real disaster: 
emergency aid to West Coast fishers and owners of small fishing boats. 
This real emergency is caused by a fish population decline and by bad 
Federal policy. It affects the entire West Coast.
  Simply put, there are too many fishing boats, too few fish, and too 
many Federal fishing restrictions based on spotty data.
  The bipartisan commonsense amendment we offered, offered by me, by 
the gentleman from Oregon (Mr. Walden), by the gentlewoman from 
California (Mrs. Capps), and by the gentleman from California (Mr. 
Kuykendall), that is two Democrats and two Republicans, would have 
addressed these challenges with better science and better fish 
counting, with a buy-back of boats to reduce fishing capacity, and 
financial aid to affected families.
  Mr. Speaker, this commonsense, bipartisan amendment was rejected by 
the Committee on Rules in the dead of night. I guess it is easy for 
common sense and compassion to die late at night.
  I ask my colleagues who care about hard-working fishing families to 
vote against this rule.
  Mr. GOSS. Mr. Speaker, may I inquire as to the time remaining.
  The SPEAKER pro tempore (Mr. Nussle). The gentleman from Florida (Mr. 
Goss) has 9 minutes remaining; the gentleman from Massachusetts (Mr. 
Moakley) has 9 minutes remaining.
  Mr. GOSS. Mr. Speaker, perhaps the gentleman from Massachusetts would 
like to continue the rotation.
  Mr. MOAKLEY. Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentleman for his realization 
that my 9 minutes is more important than his 9 minutes.
  Mr. Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the gentlewoman from Ohio (Ms. 
Kaptur).
  (Ms. KAPTUR asked and was given permission to revise and extend her 
remarks.)
  Ms. KAPTUR. Mr. Speaker, I rise in opposition to this rule and in 
utter consternation that the Republican majority has not allowed 
Democrats to offer worthy amendments under this so-called open rule.
  First of all, allowing only 10 minutes to debate war in Colombia and 
a major U.S. commitment that will be long term is absolutely 
reprehensible.
  Secondly, on the domestic scene, when we look at oil prices and our 
total dependence on foreign sources of supply into this economy, and 
the fact that we have not been allowed to offer amendments that would 
ask our Secretary of Energy to begin to move toward renewables here at 
home, giving him the right to purchase ethanol and bio diesel, to fill 
that strategic petroleum reserve, which, by the way, 90 percent of it 
has been imported foreign oil.
  Mr. DREIER. Mr. Speaker, will the gentlewoman yield?
  Ms. KAPTUR. Mr. Speaker, I will not yield to the gentleman; I do not 
have enough time right now. The gentleman did not give me the right to 
offer these amendments.
  Mr. DREIER. Mr. Speaker, I would offer the gentlewoman time right now 
if she would like to yield to me.
  The SPEAKER pro tempore. The gentlewoman does control the time. The 
gentlewoman may proceed.
  Ms. KAPTUR. Mr. Speaker, that is the gentleman that denied me the 
right to offer my amendments on this floor.
  Now, I want to say on this oil business that for us to continue 
foreign dependence is absolutely a military vulnerability to the United 
States of America. We had an amendment that would have allowed the 
Secretary of Energy to purchase domestically produced product and put 
it in the reserve and we have been denied that opportunity here on the 
floor.
  Finally, in the area of farm crisis here at home, low prices across 
this country, our farmers biting the dust, small and medium-sized 
farmers; we had an amendment in here that would have permitted the 
Secretary of Agriculture to offer equity capital in loans to those 
small and medium-sized farmers trying to reposition in this cruel 
marketplace today. We were disallowed the ability to do that. This is 
the year of 2000. They cannot hang on until next year.
  I want to say that many of our Members here also went up to the 
Committee on Rules yesterday. The gentleman from Pennsylvania (Mr. 
Goodling), who was just here on the floor asking for plum pox which is 
going to destroy the fruit crop in Pennsylvania and it will spread to 
other States. The gentleman from New York (Mr. Hinchey) for special 
crop disasters in New York and California and other places; the 
gentleman from Connecticut (Mr. Shays) and the gentlewoman from 
Connecticut (Mr. DeLauro) on lobster fisheries; the gentleman from 
Michigan (Mr. Stupak), the gentleman from Michigan (Mr. Camp), and the 
gentlewoman from Michigan (Ms. Stabenow) on the spread of bovine 
tuberculosis in the State of Michigan; and the gentleman from Oregon 
(Mr. Wu) and the gentlewoman from California (Mrs. Capps) who just 
appeared on fisheries on the West Coast.
  Vote ``no'' on the rule. Too many of our Members have been excluded.
  Mr. GOSS. Mr. Speaker, I yield 3 minutes to the distinguished 
gentleman from California (Mr. Dreier), the chairman of the Committee 
on Rules.
  Mr. DREIER. Mr. Speaker, I thank my friend for yielding. I would like 
to, if I could, have the attention of my very good friend from Toledo 
to explain and clarify.
  I understand that she is very concerned about this rule, but I would 
like to explain it. This is an open rule. We have an open amendment 
process, which allows any germane amendment to be considered and fully 
debated, without any time limitation whatsoever. So if my friend would 
choose to offer a striking amendment, if my friend would choose to 
offer anything that falls within the rubric of germaneness, she clearly 
has a right to do that.
  Now, she talked about 10 minutes that is allowed for her amendment. 
The ranking minority member of the Committee on Appropriations, the 
gentleman from Wisconsin (Mr. Obey), has the full general debate time, 
a half an hour, during which that entire time can be expended talking 
about this issue, if he so wishes.
  So I think it is important to note that we have time limits imposed 
on those which we granted waivers to which are beyond the standard 
Rules of the House; and what we have done is we have allowed full, no 
time limits whatsoever on any germane amendment.
  That is why I want to urge my colleagues, since this is an open 
amendment process, and yes, we have provided waivers for 14 additional 
amendments which have been made in order so that we can have a full 
debate on a lot of different issues; but the fact of the matter is, for 
people to come down here and vote against an open rule, I am really 
concerned about the prospect of that.
  So I urge my colleagues to support the rule, and I believe that it is 
the right thing, and we will have a very full day.
  Mr. MOAKLEY. Mr. Speaker, I yield 1 minute to the gentleman from 
Mississippi (Mr. Taylor).
  Mr. TAYLOR of Mississippi. Mr. Speaker, on a daily basis I hear my 
colleagues, both Democratic and Republican, lament the fact that 
Americans

[[Page H1492]]

are deployed all around the world, usually without congressional 
approval.
  I asked the Committee on Rules to approve an amendment that would 
have limited American troop strength in Colombia to 300 personnel. I 
did that because Article 1, Section 8 of the Constitution says that 
Congress has the power to declare war and only the Senate can involve 
this country in mutual defense treaties. I did that so that the $1.8 
billion that is going to Colombia would not bring American troops with 
it.
  Mr. Speaker, as we are getting ready to spend our money there, the 
Colombians have just changed their law so that if one has a high school 
diploma, one does not get drafted. They have just cut their spending 
for defense. My hunch is the Colombians think we are going to fight 
their war for them.
  If it is the will of Congress to do so, then I think Congress ought 
to vote on this. However, far too often, both Republican and Democratic 
Congresses, by omission and comission, have not done their job and 
decided where and when young Americans will be called on to fight.
  I am going to oppose this rule because, once again, the Committee on 
Rules has seen to it that we will not make that decision.
  Mr. MOAKLEY. Mr. Speaker, I yield 3 minutes to the gentlewoman from 
California (Ms. Pelosi).
  Ms. PELOSI. Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentleman for yielding and for 
his great leadership on human rights throughout this hemisphere and 
throughout the world.
  Mr. Speaker, it is almost impossible to listen to the chairman of the 
Committee on Rules claim that this is an open rule. Perhaps the word 
``open'' to him means open only to Republicans; Democrats need not 
apply with amendments.
  This bill has been called an emergency because we have an emergency 
in the drug abuse situation in our country. Indeed, we do. Mr. Speaker, 
5.5 million people in America are in need of substance abuse treatment, 
but this rule is closed to any consideration of those people. It allows 
10 minutes for an amendment to consider military assistance to Colombia 
in order to eradicate the coca leaf which flies in the face of all of 
the research on how we reduce demand in the U.S.
  But do not take my word for it.
  As the distinguished ranking member referred to earlier, the 
gentleman from Wisconsin (Mr. Obey), the Rand report, which was put 
together, the research was sponsored by the Office of National Drug 
Control Policy, by the U.S. Army, and the Rand's Drug Policy Research 
Center, this report says that for every dollar spent on treatment on 
demand is 23 times more effective than coca leaf eradication in the 
source country. What that means, Mr. Speaker, is that if one wants to 
reduce substance abuse in this country 1 percent, one would spend $34 
million, $34 million on treatment on demand; and that 1 percent 
reduction in the source country would be $723 million for the same 
result.
  Yes, we have an emergency in our country. Mr. Speaker, 5.5 million, 
as I said, Americans are in need of substance abuse treatment. Two 
million of them are receiving it, and 3.5 million people are in need.
  My amendment for $600 million would have addressed the need of 5 
percent of those people, 5 percent; and yet this rule closed us down to 
have these Members on both sides of the aisle recognize the need in our 
own country for treatment on demand and for prevention. It is a dollar 
better spent. Everyone agrees to that. It has a result that is 
documented, and yet we could not even have an amendment.
  How can we have a drug bill on this floor that talks about the 
emergency of substance abuse in our country that does not allow $1 to 
be spent on prevention and treatment on demand? It simply does not make 
sense.
  Mr. Speaker, I oppose the bill also because of not allowing a fuller 
debate on the subject of our military assistance to Colombia. Perhaps 
we should go that route. We do not know, my Republican colleagues do 
not know, because we have not discussed it.
  I urge my colleagues, with no reluctance at all, to vote resoundingly 
against this closed rule.
  Mr. GOSS. Mr. Speaker, I would point out to all Members, as they all 
know, that an open rule is an open rule under the Rules of the House.
  Mr. Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the distinguished gentleman from 
the Commonwealth of Pennsylvania (Mr. Weldon).
  Mr. WELDON of Pennsylvania. Mr. Speaker, this is an emergency 
supplemental. Let me cite some emergencies for our colleagues: 
Hurricane Floyd, Hurricane Andrew, Hurricane Hugo, the wildlands fires 
in California and in the west States of Oregon and Washington, the 
Midwestern States. How about the World Trade Center bombing. How about 
the Murrah Building bombing in Oklahoma City. How about the earthquakes 
at Loma Prieta and North Ridge. Or how about the recent fire that 
killed 5 firefighters in Worcester, Massachusetts, or just last night 
in Fort Worth, Texas where a tornado in downtown Fort Worth killed 4 
people.
  What is common with all of these emergencies, Mr. Speaker? They were 
all handled by our domestic defenders, our 1.2 million fire and EMS 
people who have not received one dime of support from this body in the 
past.
  Today, an amendment will be offered that will, for the first time, 
provide $100 million for the fire and EMS personnel across America, 85 
percent of whom are volunteers, 32,000 departments, on average, 60 to 
80 in every congressional district represented in this body. But, Mr. 
Speaker, we cannot pass that Weldon-Hoyer bipartisan amendment 
supported by the gentleman from New Jersey (Mr. Pascrell); supported by 
the gentleman from New Jersey (Mr. Andrews); supported by the gentleman 
from Pennsylvania (Mr. Shuster) unless we pass the rule.

                              {time}  1200

  Mr. Speaker, we cannot pass the amendment unless colleagues on both 
sides of the aisle join in supporting the bipartisan Weldon-Hoyer-
Smith-Pascrell-Andrews amendment for the fire service.
  Mr. Speaker, we cannot provide the $100 million of short-term funding 
and access to $4.8 billion of long-term funding unless we pass the 
supplemental.
  Mr. Speaker, I ask my colleagues who have joined in support of the 
Pascrell bill, over 260 of us, to support the fire service of this 
country. Today is our chance. Fire fighters across America are going to 
man the phones. Now is Members' chance to show their support for them 
with a real vote to help deal with the emergencies of this country.
  Mr. GOSS. Mr. Speaker, I yield 1\1/2\ minutes to the gentleman from 
Utah (Mr. Hansen).
  (Mr. HANSEN asked and was given permission to revise and extend his 
remarks.)
  Mr. HANSEN. Mr. Speaker, we have a very critical problem in America 
today. It is called, training our military on the East Coast. The only 
place we can really put this thing together happens to be a little 
island outside of Puerto Rico called Vieques.
  There is the final test for the Navy and Marines. That is where they 
go and do the live fire. That is where they go out prepared to take on 
any commitment that the United States has.
  Now we find ourselves in a position, Mr. Speaker, where trespassers 
have come in, occupied the ground, gone through the gates, squatted on 
the ground, and we cannot do it any longer. It just totally amazes me. 
Our officers have gone to the Attorney General and said, kick these 
people off. Our Attorney General will not do it.
  So we find ourselves in the position, Mr. Speaker, of, what do we do 
at this point? How important is this training? Let me tell the Members 
what the Secretary of the Navy says: ``This training wins wars. Many 
Americans in uniform owe their lives to this crucial training. Many 
would perish without it.''
  The chief of Naval Operations and the Commandant of the Marine Corps 
have both testified that the combined live fire training at Vieques is 
the most effective training we can do.
  We have an amendment, the Fowler-Hansen amendment, that will be 
coming up. It does this. I hope people pay attention. One, there can be 
no trespassers on this live fire area. Like most people in the United 
States, we all have in every State live fire going on and we do not 
have trespassers.
  It restores the integrity of the range. It tells the Attorney General 
to get these people off, and live fire would resume before the $40 
million goes to them.

[[Page H1493]]

  I would hope people would support this commonsense amendment.
  Mr. MOAKLEY. Mr. Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from 
Wisconsin (Mr. Obey), the ranking member of the Committee on 
Appropriations.
  Mr. OBEY. Mr. Speaker, if Members want to know why the gentlewoman 
from Ohio (Ms. Kaptur) is unhappy, just recognize this: The majority 
runs this institution. The majority wrote this bill. They used the 
Budget Act then to fence out amendments.
  Out of the 14 amendments being allowed under this bill, two are being 
offered by Democrats, ten by Republicans, and two have a bipartisan 
tone. That in my view is not a balanced approach.
  I would also urge Members to recognize that we should not spend a 
lousy 10 minutes debating whether we are going to be at war in Colombia 
for the next 5 years. I would remind Members of what James Hoagland, 
the distinguished columnist, asked; that now, in the rush into this 
quagmire, what is happening:
  ``What happens when it becomes clear that the considered judgment of 
U.S. Air Force officers that the Colombia military will not be able to 
maintain the Black Hawks under the condition in which they will be 
flying is shown to be correct? Will the United States replace the 
helicopters that crash or are shot down, at $13 million a copy? Will 
large numbers of U.S. advisers be provided to maintain the helicopter 
force?
  ``Clinton, of course, will not be around to provide answers. The 
helicopters will not arrive until 6 months after he leaves office. His 
successor will inherit an open-ended military obligation that can be 
trimmed back or abandoned only at domestic political cost.''
  It says, ``. . . House Republicans have championed supersized aid to 
Colombia, with an eye to blasting Clinton and Gore if it is not passed. 
They are the true catalysts for this foreign policy fiasco. They 
blithely ignore the fact that American demand is at the root of the 
drug problem more than Columbian supply. They voted down efforts by 
Representative Nancy Pelosi to add funds for drug treatment at home in 
the catch-all bill that provides aid to Colombia. They sliced out of 
that same bill $211 million in debt relief for the world's poorest 
countries. They will shoot away the problems of the Third World.
  ``That has been tried elsewhere, with similar fuzzy and contradictory 
thinking in Washington at the take-off. I can only wonder: Where is the 
Vietnam Syndrome when we need it?''
  Mr. Speaker, I urge a ``no'' vote on this rule.
  Mr. GOSS. Mr. Speaker, I yield 1 minute to the distinguished 
gentleman from California (Mr. Kuykendall).
  Mr. KUYKENDALL. Mr. Speaker, I am glad today this rule will allow us 
to debate this Vieques range. The range is the only place on the East 
Coast where we can do live fire training of all the combined forces. 
That means Marines ashore, Navy in ships, airmen in aircraft, whether 
we are shooting or missiles or live fire artillery, and we are doing it 
in conjunction with our forces. That is training that is invaluable 
when we have to go fight a war.
  For the last decade, nearly every deployment this Nation has had from 
the East Coast of the United States has sent American military forces 
directly into combat operations. Whether it is the Persian Gulf War or 
Kosovo, other Balkan operations, or operations like Operation Desert 
Fox, where we went immediately into bombing in Iraq as part of the no-
fly zone enforcement, or getting inspectors back into the country, live 
information training is essential.
  I as a young artilleryman in the Marine Corps trained at a live fire 
range in Oklahoma. I was only 3 miles away from U.S. citizens in my 
training. Here we have at least an 8-mile piece of safe zone. This 
amendment needs to be approved. Vote for the rule.
  Mr. GOSS. Mr. Speaker, I yield 1 minute to the distinguished 
gentleman from Ohio (Mr. Traficant).
  Mr. TRAFICANT. Mr. Speaker, I will vote for the previous question and 
the rule. Our military has been underfunded. We cannot protect America 
with a neighborhood crime watch. Congress should be bolstering up our 
defenses.
  I will also notify the Congress I will be offering a buy American 
amendment to this that will say, when you are spending this money, try 
and buy American-made products, try and buy American services to keep 
the ball rolling.
  I think it is a good rule and it is a good bill. We should support 
both.
  Mr. MOAKLEY. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself the balance of my time.
  Mr. Speaker, my dear friend, my colleague, the gentleman from 
California, said we should fund the Colombia military because there is 
peace in El Salvador today. I would remind my colleague that peace in 
El Salvador did not start until we cut off the military aid to El 
Salvador. After 12 years of brutal war and 75,000 innocent lives lost, 
the parties did not come anywhere near the negotiating table until we 
cut the military aid to El Salvador. As long as we were funding the 
war, it continued. As long as we fund the Colombian military and as 
long as we provide them weapons, they will use those weapons and the 
war will continue.
  Mr. Speaker, I would hope the rule does not pass.
  Mr. Speaker, I yield back the balance of my time.
  Mr. GOSS. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself the balance of our time.
  Mr. Speaker, I wanted to quickly point to a few things.
  First of all, I am not sure that everybody really understands that 
the FARC is not just another political opposition group. This is a 
vicious guerilla band of people that this past weekend killed 26 
policemen in Colombia, in one city, in Bahia del Puerto. They beheaded 
the chief of police and killed four children between the ages of 3 and 
7, to say nothing of their mothers and other innocent victims.
  This is, unfortunately, routine business. This is the face of a 
terrorist insurrection against a democratic government.
  Secondly, I would like to point out, the much-discussed Rand report 
talking about how much more we get out of our money for treatment, that 
is interesting if we are talking about treatment, but we are talking 
about trying to stop people from becoming victims. We do not want them 
to become addicts. We do want to treat the addicts, but we want to stop 
our youth from becoming addicts by making sure there is no supply for 
them. That is a legitimate part of what we are about.
  The third thing is, there are many elements to this bill that were 
not discussed today: Kosovo burdensharing, a critical bipartisan 
amendment that I know will get a lot of attention as the day goes on.
  The fourth thing, some talk about entanglement. We are not sending an 
expeditionary force, we are sending training and logistics support.
  Fifth, what does this matter to the average American who does not 
necessarily know where Colombia falls on the map of the world? I will 
tell Members what it matters, it matters about our kids, our kids who 
are tempted by the scourge of drugs. We are dealing with our children 
and our grandchildren and their future.
  If Members do not like that, we are dealing with the price of gas, 
because gas comes from this area, too. Destabilization in this area is 
just going to keep the price of gas higher longer.
  So there are lots of ways Members can bring this personally to 
themselves and into their lives, to their pocketbook, to their quality 
of life. But nothing, nothing should take second place to the well-
being of our kids and us doing our job to make sure they are properly 
protected.
  This is a good open rule, it is a fair rule. I urge support for the 
rule.
  Mr. SPRATT. Mr. Speaker, early last Friday, the House passed the 
Republican budget resolution for Fiscal Year 2001 by all of 4 votes. 
Today, the Republican leadership overrides it. If this rule passes, the 
House will take up a supplemental appropriations bill that, with likely 
amendments, is $4 billion above the spending level assumed in the 
budget resolution the House just passed. Since the extra cost will not 
be offset, the budget surplus for 200 will drop and so will the surplus 
for 2001. In fact, by our calculation, this supplemental, along with 
other actions already taken or likely to be taken, will reduce the on-
budget surplus this year from $26.5 billion to $4.9 billion.
  Last week, when the House debated the budget resolution, we predicted 
that over ten years, the Republican budget would spend all

[[Page H1494]]

of the non-Social Security surplus and $68 billion of the Social 
Security surplus. We pointed out how the Republican resolution assumed 
spending cuts of $117 billion over five years, cuts we doubted Congress 
would make. And if those unrealistic cuts weren't made, we warned that 
you would dig even more into the Social Security surplus. We were 
convinced that this resolution would be overridden by more spending, as 
were the budget resolutions in 1999 and 1998, but we never thought you 
would do it in less than a week.
  I readily agree that this bill contains funds for national defense 
and domestic priorities that are important. I am not contesting the 
validity of most of these items. I am contesting the validity of your 
budget resolution, for this supplemental shows that your spending 
levels are a sham.
  A few days ago, you were calling for draconian spending cuts. Now you 
are asking for dramatic increases, $12.5 billion in one year, much more 
than the President requested.
  The President requested $2.2 billion for non-defense programs for the 
supplemental. The bill reported out of committee takes that request up 
to $3.2 billion, an increase of almost 50 percent. About $600 million 
of this $1.0 billion uses fiscal year 2000 funding to buy fiscal year 
2001 items: $282 million for domestic electronic surveillance of drug 
activities, and $318 million for anti-drug efforts in Columbia.
  For defense, the President requested a supplemental of $2.3 billion. 
The bill the committee reported more than doubles that to $5.2 billion. 
The Spence-Lewis amendment would add $4.0 billion to that. Much of this 
would use fiscal year 2000 money to buy fiscal year 2001 items, easing 
the strain on 2001. But many of the defense adds are recurring costs, 
such as defense health care funding and spare parts and maintenance for 
weapon systems like Apache helicopters and Navy ships. By making this 
add, Republicans are disavowing the spending level for defense 
specified in last week's budget resolution, and not just for 2001. In 
all probability, Congress will have to continue appropriating these 
additional sums in future years.
  Does anyone here honestly believe that this is a one-time request for 
Colombia?
  This supplemental is a clever way to turn the flank of the resolution 
passed last week. It's a scheme that allows Congress to pay some fiscal 
year 2001 costs using fiscal year 2000 money. I understand the need. 
But if Republicans find the 2001 spending levels too tight, how will 
you find the spending levels in 2002, when the discretionary spending 
cuts get deeper? And at the same time the spending cuts get deeper, the 
tax cuts get larger. What does this portend for Social Security? Will 
you be forced to tap even more into the Social Security surplus?
  This supplemental shows that the Republican budget is not serious. 
Until Congress has passed a conference report with realistic spending 
levels and responsible tax cuts, we should hold this supplemental in 
abeyance.
  Ms. WATERS. Mr. Speaker, I urge my colleagues to oppose this rule, 
which specifically makes in order twelve amendments offered by 
Republicans and waives all points of order against these amendments. 
Only two amendments offered by Democrats were made in order by this 
partisan rule.
  I plan to offer an amendment to restore a mere $210 million in 
funding, which was requested by the President to provide debt relief to 
Mozambique and other heavily indebted poor countries. This Republican 
rule does not allow my amendment.
  Mozambique--one of the world's poorest countries--has recently 
experienced its worst flooding in 50 years. There are now hundreds of 
thousands of displaced people who are in desperate need of food, clean 
water, medicine, blankets and tents. The government of Mozambique 
cannot possibly address the needs of these displaced people or repair 
its damaged infrastructure while continuing to make debt payments to 
foreign governments. Debt relief has never been more important for 
Mozambique than it is now.
  Debt relief for the world's poorest countries is supported by a 
worldwide movement of churches, religious groups and non-governmental 
organizations. This movement, known as Jubilee 2000, was begun by 
Christians who believe that the year 2000, the two thousandth 
anniversary of the coming of Christ, is a Jubilee Year. According to 
the Bible, the Lord instructed the people of Ancient Israel to 
celebrate a Jubilee--or a Year or the Lord--every 50 years. During a 
Jubilee Year, debts were forgiven. Debt forgiveness for poor countries 
is the moral thing to do.
  This partisan rule also did not allow consideration of the Pelosi 
amendment, which would have added funding for drug treatment and 
prevention programs. This bill contains $1.7 billion for international 
counter-narcotics programs. We need to focus on demand reduction here 
in the United States, which fuels the production of drugs abroad.
  I urge my colleagues to oppose this unfair and shortsighted rule.
  Mr. GOSS. 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. The question is on the resolution.
  The question was taken; and the Speaker pro tempore announced that 
the ayes appeared to have it.
  Mr. OBEY. Mr. Speaker, I object to the vote on the ground that a 
quorum is not present and make the point of order that a quorum is not 
present.
  The SPEAKER pro tempore. 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 241, 
nays 182, not voting 12, as follows:

                             [Roll No. 81]

                               YEAS--241

     Aderholt
     Andrews
     Archer
     Armey
     Bachus
     Baker
     Baldacci
     Ballenger
     Barr
     Barrett (NE)
     Bartlett
     Bass
     Bateman
     Bereuter
     Biggert
     Bilbray
     Bilirakis
     Bishop
     Bliley
     Blunt
     Boehlert
     Boehner
     Bonilla
     Bono
     Boyd
     Brady (PA)
     Brady (TX)
     Bryant
     Burr
     Burton
     Buyer
     Callahan
     Calvert
     Camp
     Campbell
     Canady
     Cannon
     Castle
     Chabot
     Chambliss
     Chenoweth-Hage
     Coble
     Coburn
     Collins
     Combest
     Cook
     Cooksey
     Cox
     Cubin
     Cunningham
     Davis (VA)
     Deal
     Delahunt
     DeLauro
     DeLay
     DeMint
     Diaz-Balart
     Dickey
     Dicks
     Doolittle
     Dreier
     Duncan
     Dunn
     Ehlers
     Ehrlich
     Emerson
     English
     Ewing
     Farr
     Fletcher
     Foley
     Fossella
     Fowler
     Frelinghuysen
     Gallegly
     Ganske
     Gekas
     Gibbons
     Gilchrest
     Gillmor
     Gilman
     Goode
     Goodlatte
     Goodling
     Goss
     Graham
     Green (WI)
     Greenwood
     Gutknecht
     Hall (TX)
     Hansen
     Hastert
     Hastings (WA)
     Hayes
     Hayworth
     Hefley
     Herger
     Hill (MT)
     Hilleary
     Hobson
     Hoeffel
     Hoekstra
     Horn
     Hostettler
     Houghton
     Hulshof
     Hunter
     Hutchinson
     Hyde
     Isakson
     Istook
     Jenkins
     Johnson (CT)
     Johnson, Sam
     Jones (NC)
     Kanjorski
     Kasich
     Kelly
     King (NY)
     Kingston
     Knollenberg
     Kolbe
     Kuykendall
     LaHood
     Largent
     Larson
     Latham
     LaTourette
     Lazio
     Leach
     Lewis (CA)
     Lewis (KY)
     Linder
     LoBiondo
     Lucas (OK)
     Maloney (CT)
     Manzullo
     Martinez
     McCollum
     McCrery
     McHugh
     McInnis
     McIntyre
     McKeon
     Metcalf
     Mica
     Miller (FL)
     Miller, Gary
     Mollohan
     Moran (KS)
     Moran (VA)
     Morella
     Murtha
     Myrick
     Nethercutt
     Ney
     Northup
     Norwood
     Nussle
     Ortiz
     Ose
     Oxley
     Packard
     Paul
     Pease
     Peterson (PA)
     Petri
     Pickering
     Pickett
     Pitts
     Pombo
     Porter
     Portman
     Pryce (OH)
     Radanovich
     Ramstad
     Regula
     Reyes
     Reynolds
     Riley
     Rogan
     Rogers
     Rohrabacher
     Ros-Lehtinen
     Roukema
     Royce
     Ryan (WI)
     Ryun (KS)
     Sanford
     Saxton
     Scarborough
     Schaffer
     Sensenbrenner
     Sessions
     Shadegg
     Shaw
     Shays
     Sherwood
     Shimkus
     Shuster
     Simpson
     Sisisky
     Skeen
     Skelton
     Smith (MI)
     Smith (NJ)
     Smith (TX)
     Souder
     Spence
     Stearns
     Stump
     Sununu
     Sweeney
     Talent
     Tancredo
     Tauscher
     Tauzin
     Taylor (NC)
     Terry
     Thomas
     Thornberry
     Thune
     Tiahrt
     Toomey
     Traficant
     Upton
     Vitter
     Walden
     Walsh
     Wamp
     Watkins
     Watts (OK)
     Weldon (FL)
     Weldon (PA)
     Weller
     Whitfield
     Wicker
     Wilson
     Wolf
     Young (AK)
     Young (FL)

                               NAYS--182

     Abercrombie
     Ackerman
     Allen
     Baca
     Baird
     Baldwin
     Barcia
     Barrett (WI)
     Becerra
     Bentsen
     Berkley
     Berman
     Berry
     Blagojevich
     Blumenauer
     Bonior
     Borski
     Boswell
     Brown (FL)
     Brown (OH)
     Capps
     Capuano
     Cardin
     Carson
     Clay
     Clayton
     Clement
     Clyburn
     Condit
     Costello
     Coyne
     Cramer
     Crowley
     Cummings
     Danner
     Davis (FL)
     Davis (IL)
     DeFazio
     DeGette
     Deutsch
     Dingell
     Dixon
     Doggett
     Dooley
     Doyle
     Edwards
     Engel
     Eshoo
     Etheridge
     Evans
     Fattah
     Filner
     Forbes
     Ford
     Frank (MA)
     Frost
     Gejdenson
     Gephardt
     Gonzalez
     Gordon
     Green (TX)
     Gutierrez
     Hall (OH)
     Hastings (FL)
     Hill (IN)
     Hilliard
     Hinchey
     Hinojosa
     Holden
     Holt
     Hooley
     Hoyer
     Inslee
     Jackson (IL)
     Jackson-Lee (TX)
     Jefferson
     John
     Johnson, E. B.
     Jones (OH)
     Kaptur
     Kennedy
     Kildee
     Kilpatrick
     Kind (WI)
     Kleczka
     LaFalce
     Lampson
     Lantos
     Lee
     Levin
     Lewis (GA)
     Lipinski
     Lofgren
     Lowey
     Lucas (KY)
     Luther
     Maloney (NY)
     Markey
     Mascara
     Matsui
     McCarthy (MO)
     McCarthy (NY)
     McDermott
     McGovern
     McKinney
     McNulty
     Meehan

[[Page H1495]]


     Meek (FL)
     Meeks (NY)
     Menendez
     Millender-McDonald
     Miller, George
     Minge
     Mink
     Moakley
     Moore
     Nadler
     Napolitano
     Neal
     Oberstar
     Obey
     Olver
     Owens
     Pallone
     Pascrell
     Pastor
     Payne
     Pelosi
     Peterson (MN)
     Phelps
     Pomeroy
     Price (NC)
     Rahall
     Rangel
     Rivers
     Rodriguez
     Roemer
     Rothman
     Roybal-Allard
     Rush
     Sabo
     Sanchez
     Sanders
     Sandlin
     Sawyer
     Schakowsky
     Scott
     Serrano
     Sherman
     Shows
     Slaughter
     Smith (WA)
     Snyder
     Spratt
     Stabenow
     Stark
     Stenholm
     Strickland
     Stupak
     Tanner
     Taylor (MS)
     Thompson (CA)
     Thompson (MS)
     Thurman
     Tierney
     Towns
     Turner
     Udall (CO)
     Udall (NM)
     Velazquez
     Vento
     Visclosky
     Waters
     Watt (NC)
     Waxman
     Weiner
     Wexler
     Weygand
     Wise
     Woolsey
     Wu
     Wynn

                             NOT VOTING--12

     Barton
     Boucher
     Conyers
     Crane
     Everett
     Franks (NJ)
     Granger
     Klink
     Kucinich
     McIntosh
     Quinn
     Salmon

                              {time}  1231

  Ms. SANCHEZ and Ms. CARSON changed their vote from ``yea'' to 
``nay.''
  Mr. REYES and Mrs. MORELLA 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.

                          ____________________