[Congressional Record Volume 147, Number 149 (Thursday, November 1, 2001)]
[House]
[Pages H7596-H7599]
From the Congressional Record Online through the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]




WAIVING POINTS OF ORDER AGAINST CONFERENCE REPORT ON H.R. 2311, ENERGY 
             AND WATER DEVELOPMENT APPROPRIATIONS ACT, 2002

  Mr. SESSIONS. Mr. Speaker, by direction of the Committee on Rules, I 
call up House Resolution 272 and ask for its immediate consideration.
  The Clerk read the resolution, as follows:

                              H. Res. 272

       Resolved, That upon adoption of this resolution it shall be 
     in order to consider the conference report to accompany the 
     bill (H.R. 2311) making appropriations for energy and water 
     development for the fiscal year ending September 30, 2002, 
     and for other purposes. All points of order against the 
     conference report and against its consideration are waived. 
     The conference report shall be considered as read.

  The SPEAKER pro tempore (Mr. Simpson). The gentleman from Texas (Mr. 
Sessions) is recognized for 1 hour.
  Mr. SESSIONS. Mr. Speaker, for the purpose 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.
  House Resolution 272 provides for consideration of the conference 
report to accompany H.R. 2311, the Energy and Water Development 
Appropriations Act of 2002. The rule waives all points of order against 
the conference report and against its consideration and provides that 
the conference report shall be considered as read.
  Mr. Speaker, this is a noncontroversial conference report, and I am 
asking for us to support this rule and the underlying legislation.
  I want to congratulate the conferees on their hard work and urge 
passage of the rule and the underlying legislation.
  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 today to urge Members to support this rule and 
this conference report. Both the House and the Senate passed this bill 
on a bipartisan basis, and this conference report also represents a 
bipartisan, bicameral compromise.
  Additionally, this conference report contains provisions that are 
very important to the people that I represent in north Texas. It 
provides $5.5 million in critical funding for a flood control project 
along Johnson Creek in Arlington, Texas. It provides $10 million for 
the Dallas Floodway Extension, and it provides $1.2 for the Trinity 
River Basin. The final funding that each of us will receive meets the 
needs identified by the Army Corps of Engineers and local authorities.
  The conference report also provides $1 million for a state of the art 
annex to the Science Center at Texas Wesleyan University, which serves 
neighborhood children as well as students in a historic inner-city 
neighborhood on the east side of Fort Worth, Texas.

                              {time}  1030

  I also want to thank the gentleman from Indiana (Mr. Visclosky) and 
the gentleman from Texas (Mr. Edwards) for working with me to fund 
these critical provisions for north Texas.
  This is a good bill, Mr. Speaker, and the conferees should be 
commended for doing the best they could under the circumstances. But as 
many of them will tell us, they were hamstrung by the fact that the 
Senate originally passed these bills before September 11.
  Since that infamous date, Mr. Speaker, all of us have become acutely 
aware of the massive security needs facing America. This bill does not 
reflect many of the priorities of today's new war against terrorism.
  For instance, the conference report provides no additional funds to 
address terrorist threats related to nuclear weapons plants or 
Department of Energy labs. The gentleman from Texas (Mr. Edwards) 
offered an amendment to beef up the Nation's nonproliferation 
activities that prevent terrorists from getting Russian nuclear 
materials. Indeed, the administration had proposed cutting $98 million 
from this critical program.
  Fortunately, this conference report restores $81 million to this 
vital program, but that is still $17 million below last year's level.
  Overall, the Federal agencies funded by this bill have identified 
about $1.2 billion in additional security needs, but this conference 
report funds only $287 million of that, leaving us about $900 million 
short.
  Since September 11, Mr. Speaker, America's security needs have 
increased, not decreased. The safety of every American depends on 
whether this Congress and this President will invest more, not less, in 
meeting them.
  So after we pass this conference report today, it is crucial that all 
of us work together to immediately ensure all of our homeland security 
needs are fully funded. There is no higher priority.
  Mr. Speaker, I yield 7 minutes to the gentleman from Texas (Mr. 
Edwards).
  Mr. EDWARDS. Mr. Speaker, I want to commend the gentleman from 
Alabama (Chairman Callahan) and the ranking member, the gentleman from 
Indiana (Mr. Visclosky), for putting together this energy and water 
appropriation bill on a genuine bipartisan basis. This bill, because of 
their leadership, funds vital flood control and water projects for 
communities throughout the Nation. It funds important energy and 
research programs.
  I also commend the gentleman from Alabama (Mr. Callahan) and the 
gentleman from Indiana (Mr. Visclosky) for working hard to plus up 
about $85 million in the administration's ill-advised and dangerous 
budget proposal that would have cut $100 million from our programs 
designed to keep nuclear material and weapons out of the hands of 
terrorists.
  I know this bill will pass by a strong margin on a bipartisan basis 
because of all the good things in it. However, Mr. Speaker, in good 
conscience I cannot remain silent about some decisions that have been 
made by this Congress, some of which go beyond the authority of the 
Subcommittee on Energy and Water Development.
  I find it unbelievable, Mr. Speaker, unbelievable that just 1 week 
ago this House said that we could afford to give $7.4 billion in 
unearned corporate rebate checks to just 16 Fortune 500 corporations. 
Yet, this Congress to date will have cut programs designed to keep 
nuclear weapons and materials away from terrorists.
  I find it irresponsible and dangerous that even in light of the 
September 11 terrorist attacks, this House has said, in effect, by our 
votes that giving special huge tax breaks to corporations like General 
Motors, they got nearly $1 billion, IBM got $1.4 billion, General 
Electric a little under $1 billion, that those tax rebate checks to 
those corporations are more important than

[[Page H7597]]

 protecting 281 million Americans and their families from the threat of 
nuclear terrorists.
  Mr. Speaker, a recent report from a committee co-chaired by 
Republican former Senator Howard Baker and former Senator Sam Nunn, a 
Democrat, said that the threat of nuclear terrorism against the United 
States is the single most important national security concern facing 
this Nation.
  I do not question anyone's intentions in this House. I believe 
genuinely that every one of us in this House shares the belief that 
protecting Americans' lives and security is the first responsibility of 
our government. But in government, good intentions do not count if our 
budget decisions undermine the principles we preach.
  We can talk about homeland defense all we want, but may God help us 
in our war on terrorism if this Congress decides corporate tax rebate 
checks are more important than keeping nuclear weapons out of the hands 
of terrorists.
  Mr. Speaker, I would like to mention five facts about the possibility 
of nuclear terrorism against American citizens:
  Fact No. 1, had the September 11 terrorists been able to use a 
nuclear bomb built with a Coke can size of plutonium and placed it in a 
car in Lower Manhattan, over 2 million American citizens, not 5,000, 
would have been killed;
  Fact No. 2, there are over 600 metric tons, enough for 41,000 nuclear 
devices, of weapons-usable material in Russia that is in urgent need, 
urgent need of additional security improvements, according to our own 
U.S. Department of Energy;
  Fact No. 3, we know of 14 separate seizures of highly-enriched, bomb-
grade uranium that had been stolen from Russian nuclear sites since 
1992. Frighteningly, in eight of those 14 cases the uranium was not 
seized until it had escaped out of Russia, and was found in Germany, 
the Czech Republic, and Bulgaria;
  Fact No. 4, we know that since 1993 Osama bin Laden and his al-Qaeda 
organization have made attempts to obtain nuclear material from Russia;
  Fact No. 5, because of an agreement just signed on September 26 of 
this year, just last month, between the United States and Russia, we 
have a window of opportunity to put in place antiterrorist safeguards 
at numerous Russian nuclear sites, some of which we have never been 
able to visit prior to this agreement.
  Mr. Speaker, no one knows when that window of opportunity might 
close. I believe it would be dangerous for this Congress not to take 
advantage of such a chance and carry out our responsibility to get 
better control of Russian nuclear material so it will not some day, God 
forbid, end up in a major American city as part of a terrorist bomb.
  Based on these known five facts and the devastating potential of 
nuclear terrorist attacks, I believe strongly that Congress should act 
immediately, not next month, not the month after that, not next year, 
but we should act immediately to work with Russia in providing adequate 
safeguards at their numerous nuclear sites.
  I find it hard to believe, frankly, that in this energy and water 
appropriation bill we are adding $400 million to improve the U.S. 
offensive nuclear arsenal, which everyone would agree in all nations is 
by far the most powerful nuclear force in the world; yet, in my 
opinion, we are cutting what is generally considered the single most 
effective program in keeping nuclear materials out of the hands of 
terrorists: a materials prevention and control accounting program.
  Mr. Speaker, I know every single Member of this House would do almost 
anything, personally or publicly, to prevent a nuclear terrorist attack 
on the United States. Sadly, though, sadly, though, our spending and 
tax decisions in this Congress are not consistent with that commitment.
  I believe the gentleman from Alabama (Chairman Callahan) and the 
gentleman from Indiana (Mr. Visclosky), who already worked hard to 
support these programs, are genuine in their efforts to convince this 
House and the other body that we in this Congress have a moral 
obligation to the American people to do everything possible to prevent 
terrorists from using nuclear weapons against the American family.
  If the decisionmakers beyond the scope of this appropriations 
subcommittee's jurisdiction do not this year either expand the budget 
allocation for nuclear nonproliferation programs or add significant 
funding in the supplemental appropriations bill, if we fail to do that, 
then we will have failed the American people in our sworn oath to 
protect and defend them.
  We know terrorists are at war with us. If we Americans are truly at 
war with them, then this Congress must make homeland defense our top 
priority, not just our favorite rhetoric.
  The clock is ticking and our children's future is at risk. I intend 
to work with the gentleman from Alabama (Chairman Callahan), the 
gentleman from Indiana (Mr. Visclosky), and other Members of this 
Congress who agree that we must act now, immediately, to ensure that 
our families and children never have to witness an American holocaust 
perpetrated by nuclear terrorists.
  Mr. SESSIONS. Mr. Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the distinguished 
gentleman from Alabama (Mr. Callahan), the chairman of the 
subcommittee.
  Mr. CALLAHAN. Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentleman for yielding time to 
me.
  In response to the remarks of the gentleman from Texas about the 
shortages that are apparent in our bill for the nuclear 
nonproliferation account, certainly he is correct. However, we have 
assured him, and we discussed this at great length in conference, that 
we are going to correct that in some supplemental bill somewhere before 
the end of the year.
  He is absolutely right, the commission that President Clinton put 
together, including former Senator Sam Nunn and Susan Eisenhower, have 
come to us and they have told us of the serious need for additional 
funds. We are going to find those funds. There were just no more 
additional funds available in this bill.
  I assure the gentleman from Texas and assure this Congress that we 
are going to provide adequate resources to this administration to 
ensure that the nonproliferation agreement works.
  Mr. SESSIONS. Mr. Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.
  Mr. FROST. Mr. Speaker, I yield 1 additional minute to the gentleman 
from Texas (Mr. Edwards).
  Mr. EDWARDS. Mr. Speaker, very briefly, I would just like to thank 
the gentleman from Alabama (Chairman Callahan), who just spoke, for his 
leadership to date on this effort. I am convinced had it not been for 
his work, along with that of the gentleman from Indiana (Mr. 
Visclosky), we would be looking at this administration's proposed $100 
million cut in nonproliferation nuclear programs.
  I would have been much more comfortable had I been able to say to my 
colleagues and the American people that we are taking care of this 
problem today in this energy and water appropriation bill, but I failed 
in my effort to add an amendment which would have given $131 million 
extra to these programs.
  But I appreciate the leadership of the chairman to date, what he has 
already done, and I am especially deeply grateful for his commitment to 
this Congress to continue those efforts and see that we adequately fund 
this budget, in light of what has happened September 11. I thank the 
gentleman.
  Mr. FROST. Mr. Speaker, I yield 8 minutes to the gentleman from 
Wisconsin (Mr. Obey).
  Mr. OBEY. Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentleman for yielding time to me.
  Mr. Speaker, a number of years ago, right after the Soviet Union 
collapsed, I was at a bipartisan conference in Budapest and we met with 
a series of Soviet and Russian officials. Among those in attendance was 
the then Foreign Minister Andrei Kozyrov and the Deputy Defense 
Minister Andre Kokoshin.
  Also present at that meeting were a number of Members of this House 
and the other body, such as Senators Nunn, Lugar, Congressman Aspin, 
who later went on to become Secretary of Defense, Senator Levin, 
myself, and a number of others.
  We were asked by two Russian officials if we could come into a 
private hotel room to discuss a very serious situation, so we gathered. 
They described to us their terror at the lack of security relative to 
the kind of nuclear material which the gentleman from Texas just 
discussed.

[[Page H7598]]

  As a result of those discussions, the Nunn-Lugar program was born. 
This country then began an effort to try to slowly but surely pull 
nuclear weapons from the various Soviet provinces into Russia itself so 
there would be better control over those weapons. And in addition, this 
country began, at the urging of the Russians, who were most concerned 
about it, we began a variety of programs to try to help not only secure 
nuclear material from warheads, but we also began to think about what 
we were going to do about the fact that we had many, many Russian and 
Soviet scientists who were out of work, who had very little income, and 
who were very easy pickings for terrorist groups all around the world 
who might want to find a way to get knowledge they did not have or to 
obtain nuclear material that they did not have.

                              {time}  1045

  Our efforts to fund those programs have been sporadic at best since 
that time; and in my view, that is leading ever more inexorably to a 
serious, serious problem and perhaps even at some point a crisis.
  The gentleman from Texas (Mr. Edwards) has pointed out to you that, 
even with the meager funds we have put into these programs, on eight 
occasions authorities have seized nuclear materiel that was in the 
wrong hands and had already been secreted out of Russia itself. Four of 
those recoveries took place in Germany; three took place in the Czech 
Republic; one in Bulgaria. In addition, there were six other incidences 
during which materiel was recovered within Russia itself that had 
fallen into the wrong hands, and we do not know how many other examples 
there are of this materiel falling into the wrong hands.
  Now, under those circumstances, one would think that we would make as 
our number one priority securing that threat. We have not done so. We 
have had a lot of sporadic effort, but we have not accomplished what we 
needed to accomplish.
  The Department of Defense has responsibilities in this area; so does 
the Department of Energy. This bill corrects to a large extent the 
budget reductions made by the administration in the program that the 
gentleman from Texas (Mr. Edwards) just described; but in my view, we 
have an obligation to go far beyond what was merely provided last year 
in order to really get a handle on this problem.
  Now, the problem that we have in addition to this is that DOE has 
told us that they have at least $1.2 billion of additional needs, and 
they have been funded only to a very small extent in this bill because 
of funding limitations imposed on it by the allocation.
  In addition to that, we have been told that there are at least half a 
billion dollars' worth of defense funding requirements relating to 
nuclear materiel that we ought to be providing for recovery programs 
here or for security programs within our own country, and very little 
of that is being responded to.
  Those requirements are far beyond what was included in the fiscal 
2002 budget or the House or the Senate bill. It just seems to me that a 
Congress that can provide $25 billion in tax gifts to General Electric, 
to AT&T and to other truly needy people in this society like that, and 
I am being sarcastic, Mr. Speaker, when I say that, it seems to me that 
if Congress can find the money to provide that kind of gift to the non-
needy, we certainly ought to have enough common sense to find enough 
room in our budget to deal with one of the most serious security 
problems that faces this country and this planet.
  I regard the lack of funding across DOE for a number of programs not 
even mentioned here today, including one that I brought to the 
attention of the committee in a private session, I regard the neglect 
of those vulnerabilities to be almost criminal negligence, not on the 
part of this committee but on the part of people in the Government who 
know the serious problems and vulnerabilities that exist out there that 
are not being dealt with.
  Now, I love to give tax cuts as much as the next man; but our first 
obligation in this instance is to secure the home front. We are not 
doing it sufficiently with this bill. We are not doing it sufficiently 
with other bills that will be before this Congress; and until we do, we 
are failing our principal obligation to protect the public safety of 
each and every citizen that we represent.
  That is why, despite many of the good things in this bill, I will be 
voting against this bill to try to indicate my extreme concern about 
the lack of attention and the lack of follow-through on these problems.
  I appreciate the consideration of the gentleman from Alabama (Mr. 
Callahan) when he says we will try to deal with this in a future bill. 
My suggestion to the House is that I think, if this is a high priority, 
it ought to be dealt with immediately. It is not, and that is why I am 
going to be voting against this bill.
  This is not due to any negligence on the part of the subcommittee 
chairman or the ranking member, any of the subcommittee members; but in 
my view the priorities of this Congress, given this problem, I think 
these priorities are misbegotten.
  Mr. SESSIONS. Mr. Speaker, the majority wishes to reserve its time.
  Mr. FROST. Mr. Speaker, I would advise the majority that we have no 
further speakers, and I yield back the balance of our time.
  Mr. SESSIONS. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume. 
I want to thank the gentleman from Texas (Mr. Frost) for that.
  Mr. Speaker, I urge adoption of this rule, which will allow us to 
consider this important conference report.
  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. Simpson). The question is on the 
resolution.
  The question was taken; and the Speaker pro tempore announced that 
the ayes appeared to have it.
  Mr. FROST. 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 421, 
nays 2, not voting 9, as follows:

                             [Roll No. 415]

                               YEAS--421

     Abercrombie
     Ackerman
     Aderholt
     Akin
     Allen
     Andrews
     Armey
     Baca
     Bachus
     Baird
     Baker
     Baldacci
     Baldwin
     Ballenger
     Barcia
     Barr
     Barrett
     Bartlett
     Barton
     Bass
     Becerra
     Bentsen
     Bereuter
     Berman
     Berry
     Biggert
     Bilirakis
     Bishop
     Blagojevich
     Blumenauer
     Blunt
     Boehlert
     Boehner
     Bonilla
     Bonior
     Bono
     Borski
     Boswell
     Boucher
     Boyd
     Brady (PA)
     Brady (TX)
     Brown (OH)
     Brown (SC)
     Bryant
     Burr
     Burton
     Buyer
     Callahan
     Calvert
     Camp
     Cannon
     Cantor
     Capito
     Capps
     Capuano
     Cardin
     Carson (IN)
     Carson (OK)
     Castle
     Chabot
     Chambliss
     Clay
     Clayton
     Clement
     Clyburn
     Coble
     Collins
     Combest
     Condit
     Conyers
     Cooksey
     Costello
     Cox
     Coyne
     Cramer
     Crane
     Crenshaw
     Crowley
     Culberson
     Cummings
     Cunningham
     Davis (CA)
     Davis (FL)
     Davis (IL)
     Davis, Jo Ann
     Davis, Tom
     Deal
     DeFazio
     DeGette
     Delahunt
     DeLauro
     DeLay
     DeMint
     Deutsch
     Diaz-Balart
     Dicks
     Dingell
     Doggett
     Dooley
     Doolittle
     Doyle
     Dreier
     Duncan
     Edwards
     Ehlers
     Ehrlich
     Emerson
     Engel
     English
     Eshoo
     Etheridge
     Evans
     Everett
     Farr
     Fattah
     Ferguson
     Filner
     Flake
     Fletcher
     Foley
     Forbes
     Ford
     Fossella
     Frank
     Frelinghuysen
     Frost
     Gallegly
     Ganske
     Gekas
     Gephardt
     Gibbons
     Gilchrest
     Gillmor
     Gilman
     Gonzalez
     Goode
     Goodlatte
     Gordon
     Goss
     Graham
     Granger
     Graves
     Green (TX)
     Green (WI)
     Greenwood
     Grucci
     Gutierrez
     Gutknecht
     Hall (TX)
     Hansen
     Harman
     Hart
     Hastings (FL)
     Hastings (WA)
     Hayes
     Hayworth
     Hefley
     Hill
     Hilleary
     Hilliard
     Hinchey
     Hinojosa
     Hobson
     Hoeffel
     Hoekstra
     Holden
     Holt
     Honda
     Hooley
     Horn
     Hostettler
     Houghton
     Hoyer
     Hulshof
     Hunter
     Hyde
     Inslee
     Isakson
     Israel
     Issa
     Istook
     Jackson (IL)
     Jackson-Lee (TX)
     Jefferson
     Jenkins
     John
     Johnson (CT)
     Johnson (IL)
     Johnson, E. B.
     Johnson, Sam
     Jones (NC)
     Jones (OH)
     Kanjorski
     Kaptur
     Keller
     Kelly
     Kennedy (MN)
     Kennedy (RI)
     Kerns
     Kildee
     Kilpatrick
     Kind (WI)
     King (NY)
     Kingston
     Kirk
     Kleczka
     Knollenberg
     Kolbe
     Kucinich
     LaFalce
     LaHood
     Lampson
     Langevin
     Lantos
     Largent
     Larsen (WA)
     Larson (CT)

[[Page H7599]]


     Latham
     LaTourette
     Leach
     Lee
     Levin
     Lewis (CA)
     Lewis (GA)
     Lewis (KY)
     Linder
     Lipinski
     LoBiondo
     Lofgren
     Lowey
     Lucas (KY)
     Lucas (OK)
     Luther
     Lynch
     Maloney (CT)
     Maloney (NY)
     Manzullo
     Markey
     Mascara
     Matheson
     Matsui
     McCarthy (MO)
     McCarthy (NY)
     McCollum
     McDermott
     McGovern
     McHugh
     McInnis
     McIntyre
     McKeon
     McKinney
     McNulty
     Meehan
     Meek (FL)
     Meeks (NY)
     Menendez
     Mica
     Millender-McDonald
     Miller, Dan
     Miller, Gary
     Miller, George
     Miller, Jeff
     Mink
     Mollohan
     Moore
     Moran (KS)
     Moran (VA)
     Morella
     Murtha
     Myrick
     Nadler
     Napolitano
     Neal
     Nethercutt
     Ney
     Northup
     Norwood
     Nussle
     Oberstar
     Obey
     Olver
     Ortiz
     Osborne
     Ose
     Otter
     Owens
     Oxley
     Pallone
     Pascrell
     Pastor
     Paul
     Payne
     Pelosi
     Pence
     Peterson (MN)
     Peterson (PA)
     Petri
     Phelps
     Pickering
     Pitts
     Platts
     Pombo
     Pomeroy
     Portman
     Price (NC)
     Pryce (OH)
     Putnam
     Quinn
     Radanovich
     Rahall
     Ramstad
     Rangel
     Regula
     Rehberg
     Reyes
     Reynolds
     Riley
     Rivers
     Rodriguez
     Roemer
     Rogers (KY)
     Rogers (MI)
     Rohrabacher
     Ros-Lehtinen
     Ross
     Rothman
     Roukema
     Roybal-Allard
     Royce
     Rush
     Ryan (WI)
     Ryun (KS)
     Sabo
     Sanchez
     Sanders
     Sandlin
     Sawyer
     Saxton
     Schaffer
     Schakowsky
     Schiff
     Schrock
     Scott
     Sensenbrenner
     Serrano
     Sessions
     Shadegg
     Shaw
     Shays
     Sherman
     Sherwood
     Shimkus
     Shows
     Shuster
     Simmons
     Simpson
     Skeen
     Skelton
     Slaughter
     Smith (MI)
     Smith (NJ)
     Smith (TX)
     Smith (WA)
     Snyder
     Solis
     Souder
     Spratt
     Stearns
     Stenholm
     Strickland
     Stump
     Stupak
     Sununu
     Sweeney
     Tancredo
     Tanner
     Tauscher
     Tauzin
     Taylor (MS)
     Taylor (NC)
     Terry
     Thomas
     Thompson (CA)
     Thornberry
     Thune
     Thurman
     Tiahrt
     Tiberi
     Tierney
     Toomey
     Towns
     Traficant
     Turner
     Udall (CO)
     Udall (NM)
     Upton
     Velazquez
     Visclosky
     Vitter
     Walden
     Walsh
     Wamp
     Waters
     Watkins (OK)
     Watson (CA)
     Watt (NC)
     Watts (OK)
     Waxman
     Weiner
     Weldon (FL)
     Weldon (PA)
     Weller
     Whitfield
     Wicker
     Wilson
     Wolf
     Woolsey
     Wu
     Wynn
     Young (FL)

                                NAYS--2

     Berkley
     Stark
       

                             NOT VOTING--9

     Brown (FL)
     Cubin
     Dunn
     Hall (OH)
     Herger
     McCrery
     Thompson (MS)
     Wexler
     Young (AK)

                              {time}  1116

  Messrs. STEARNS, SHAYS and ABERCROMBIE 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.

                          ____________________