[Congressional Record Volume 140, Number 12 (Wednesday, February 9, 1994)]
[House]
[Page H]
From the Congressional Record Online through the Government Printing Office [www.gpo.gov]


[Congressional Record: February 9, 1994]
From the Congressional Record Online via GPO Access [wais.access.gpo.gov]

 
     PROVIDING FOR CONSIDERATION OF H.R. 811, INDEPENDENT COUNSEL 
                      REAUTHORIZATION ACT OF 1993

  Mr. DERRICK. Mr. Speaker, by direction of the Committee on Rules, I 
call up House Resolution 352 and ask for its immediate consideration.
  The Clerk read the resolution, as follows:

                              H. Res. 352

       Resolved, That at any time after the adoption of this 
     resolution the Speaker may, pursuant to clause 1(b) of rule 
     XXIII, declare the House resolved into the Committee of the 
     Whole House on the state of the Union for consideration of 
     the bill (H.R. 811) to reauthorize the independent counsel 
     law for an additional five years, and for other purposes. The 
     first reading of the bill shall be dispensed with. Points of 
     order against consideration of the bill for failure to comply 
     with section 302(f) of the Congressional Budget Act of 1974 
     are waived. General debate shall be confined to the bill and 
     the amendments made in order by this resolution and shall not 
     exceed one hour equally divided and controlled by the 
     chairman and ranking minority member of the Committee on the 
     Judiciary. After general debate the bill shall be considered 
     for amendment under the five-minute rule. It shall be in 
     order to consider as an original bill for the purpose of 
     amendment under the five-minute rule the amendment in the 
     nature of a substitute recommended by the Committee on the 
     Judiciary now printed in the bill. The committee amendment in 
     the nature of a substitute shall be considered as read. 
     Points of order against the committee amendment in the nature 
     of a substitute for failure to comply with section 302(f) of 
     the Congressional Budget Act of 1974 or clause 5(a) of rule 
     XXI are waived. No amendment to the committee amendment in 
     the nature of a substitute shall be in order except those 
     printed in the report of the Committee on Rules accompanying 
     this resolution. Each amendment may be offered only in the 
     order printed in the report, may be offered only by a Member 
     designated in the report, shall be considered as read, shall 
     be debatable for the time specified in the report equally 
     divided and controlled by the proponent and an opponent, 
     shall not be subject to amendment except as specified in the 
     report, and shall not be subject to a demand for division of 
     the question in the House or in the Committee of the Whole. 
     All points of order against the amendments printed in the 
     report are waived. 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. Any Member may demand a separate vote in the House 
     on any amendment adopted in the Committee of the Whole to the 
     bill or to the committee amendment in the nature of a 
     substitute. 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. After passage of H.R. 811, is shall 
     be in order to take from the Speaker's table the bill S. 24 
     and to consider the Senate bill in the House. All points of 
     order against the Senate bill and against its consideration 
     are waived. It shall be in order to move to strike all after 
     the enacting clause of the Senate bill and to insert in lieu 
     thereof the provisions of H.R. 811 as passed by the House. 
     All points of order against that motion are waived. If the 
     motion is adopted and the Senate bill, as amended, is passed, 
     then it shall be in order to move that the House insist on 
     its amendments to S. 24 and request a conference with the 
     Senate thereon.

  Mr. DERRICK. Mr. Speaker, for the purpose of debate only, I yield the 
customary 30 minutes to the gentleman from Florida [Mr. Goss], pending 
which I yield myself such time as I may consume. During consideration 
of this resolution, all time yielded is for the purpose of debate only.
  (Mr. DERRICK asked and was given permission to revise and extend his 
remarks.)
  Mr. DERRICK. Mr. Speaker, House Resolution 352 provides for the 
consideration of H.R. 811, the Independent Counsel Reauthorization Act 
of 1993. The rule provides for 1 hour of general debate equally divided 
and controlled by the chairman and ranking minority member of the 
Judiciary Committee. Under the rule, section 302(f) of the 
Congressional Budget Act, which prohibits consideration of measures 
that would cause the appropriate subcommittee level or program level 
ceilings to be exceeded, is waived against consideration of the bill.
  The rule makes the Judiciary Committee substitute, now printed in the 
bill, in order as an original bill for the purpose of amendment. The 
substitute shall be considered as read.
  Section 302(f) of the Congressional Budget Act and clause 5(a) of 
rule 21, prohibiting appropriations in a legislative bill, are waived 
against the committee substitute.
  The rule makes in order only those amendments printed in the report 
to accompany the rule. The amendments shall be considered in the order 
and manner specified in the report and may be offered only by the 
member designated in the report or his designee. The amendments shall 
be considered as read and shall be debatable for the time specified in 
the report equally divided and controlled by the proponent and an 
opponent. The amendments shall not be subject to amendment except as 
specified in the report, shall be considered as read, and shall not 
subject to a demand for a division of the question.
  All points of order are waived against the amendments printed in the 
report. Further, the rule provides for one motion to recommit with or 
without instructions.
  Finally, the rule provides for a hook-up with the Senate passed bill 
S. 24. After passage of H.R. 811, the rule makes it in order to 
consider S. 24 in the House. All points of order are waived against the 
Senate bill and against its consideration. The rule further makes in 
order a motion to strike all after the enacting clause of S. 24 and 
insert the text of H.R. 811 as passed by the House. All points of order 
are waived against the motion. If the motion is adopted and the Senate 
bill, as amended, is passed, the rule makes in order a motion that the 
House insist on its amendments to S. 24 and request a conference.
  Mr. Speaker, H.R. 811 reauthorizes for 5 years the independent 
counsel provisions of the Ethics in Government Act which would allow 
the appointment of special prosecutors to investigate alleged 
wrongdoing by top executive branch officials, including the President. 
The purpose of the provisions was to ensure that investigations are 
carried out impartially and without favoritism.
  The bill creates a specific category of coverage under the law for 
Members of Congress, allowing the Attorney General to use the 
independent counsel process with regard to allegations against Members 
if doing so would be in the public interest.
  In addition, the legislation would establish an extensive series of 
cost and administrative controls to restrain spending by the 
independent counsel and to ensure better oversight of their activities.
  In order to enforce cost controls, the bill requires each independent 
counsel to follow the same rules that govern spending by the Department 
of Justice, except in cases where the independent counsel can show that 
such a restriction would be inconsistent with the law.
  Under the bill, each independent counsel is also required to 
designate an employee who will be responsible for certifying that 
expenses are reasonable and lawful, and who will be held liable for any 
improper spending.
  The bill requires the General Services Administration to provide 
space for the independent counsel in Federal buildings, unless GSA 
determines that other arrangements would cost less. In addition, the 
General Accounting Office would be required to audit the administrative 
activities of each independent counsel and report the results to the 
congressional committees with oversight jurisdiction.
  Finally, H.R. 811 requires each independent counsel to make an annual 
report to Congress describing the progress of any investigation, 
prosecution, and any additional information to justify the expenditures 
that the office has made.
  Mr. Speaker, House Resolution 352 is a fair rule that will expedite 
consideration of this important legislation. I urge my colleagues to 
support the rule and the bill. I reserve the balance of my time.
  Mr. Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.
  Mr. GOSS. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume.
  (Mr. GOSS asked and was given permission to revise and extend his 
remarks, and include extraneous material.)
  Mr. GOSS. Mr. Speaker, 1 week ago this House--including 60 Members of 
the majority party--sent a thundering message that restrictive rules, 
which purposely shield Members from accountability, will not be 
routinely accepted and should not be tolerated. But until recently 
Democrat leadership seems to be ignoring the storm among its ranks. 
Today we have yet another restrictive rule, which arbitrarily prohibits 
fair and orderly consideration of a host of substantive, reasonable, 
common sense amendments to H.R. 811, the independent counsel bill, a 
bill which arguably affects every Member. Members were sent here to 
participate, to cast tough votes. We are expected to debate the issues, 
listen to all sides and then make our best judgments. That is the 
spirit of deliberative democracy. No one said it should be easy, 
comfortable or risk-free. But the Democrat leadership is bound and 
determined to slam the door on Members with reasonable amendments in 
trying to protect Members from being accountable to their constituents, 
and to shut off debate on matters displeasing to Democrat leadership. 
Time and again the majority assumes the most pretzel-like contortions 
to avoid the tough votes on the controversial issues. We saw it during 
last fall's debate on true spending cuts, when a sleight-of-hand 
substitute was offered so Members could sound tough but do next to 
nothing; and we saw it again when fiscal conservatives offered real 
spending offsets to pay for necessary disaster relief and were cut off 
at the pass. Even our distinguished Rules Committee chairman, Joe 
Moakley, has acknowledged the trend of finding an ``out'' for Members 
uncomfortable with casting tough votes. And so we have the rule today, 
artfully crafted so Members never have to really vote on the central 
question of whether Members of Congress should be covered by the 
independent counsel statute or whether once again we should be 
insulated from accountability. There will be perception of a vote, of 
course, but a guided outcome is assured. Let us not forget that 
Congress' approval rating is sinking lower than the thermometer 
outside, in large part because most folks are fed up with lawmakers who 
routinely exempt themselves from the law. The ranking member of the 
Judiciary Committee, Mr. Fish, asked our Rules Committee for an open 
rule to consider this bill. My friend, Mr. Beilenson, declared that 
``this bill is a perfect candidate'' for an open rule. He made the 
point that it is an important bill. We have a series of worthwhile and 
relevant amendments and there is unquestionably plenty of time for free 
and unfettered debate. But when it came time for a committee vote, open 
debate lost in a 5 to 5 tie vote. Several very important amendments 
were shut out, including two of Mr. Fish's proposals seeking to ascribe 
Department of Justice standards to the independent counsel's 
expenditure of money and enforcement of criminal laws. We all remember 
how many millions Mr. Walsh blew in his first class approach to his 
work. The distinguished gentleman from Illinois, Mr. Hyde, was denied 
the opportunity to offer separate amendments to provide penalty for 
failure to protect classified information, to provide for orderly 
termination of the independent counsel and to establish a procedure to 
reimburse attorney's fees for individuals acquitted of charges or 
exonerated in an appeal disincentives for frivolous witchhunters. There 
were proposals to provide for reappointment of the independent counsel 
every 2 years and prevent the investigations from becoming taxpayer-
financed will o' the wisps. All of these good ideas were summarily 
dismissed by the Rules Committee in a process of cherry-picking 
amendments to manipulate debate and force a predetermined outcome. The 
saddest part is that the majority members of the Rules Committee are so 
used to accepting the dictates from on high, that they almost rubber 
stamped rejection of a crucial proposal offered by Mr. Hyde requiring 
that the Attorney General have ``specific information'' from a 
``credible source'' before beginning an investigation. When the merits 
of this proposal were made clear, the Members reversed their original 
position. A glimmer of deliberative democracy in the Rules Committee. 
Mr. Speaker, if Members would step out of their partisan roles and 
consider these amendments on their merits under an open rule process, 
there's no doubt we'd have a much-improved final product. Don't be 
fooled by the majority's promise of a clear vote on the issues our 
constituents care most about--under this rule that is guaranteed not to 
happen and it means a piece of legislation that is much worse than it 
needs to be. I urge my colleagues to vote ``no'' on the previous 
question, so that I may offer an open rule. Failing that I urge a 
``no'' vote on this rule.

  Mr. Speaker, I include for the Record the following printed material:

Rollcall Votes in the Rules Committee on Amendments To the Independent 
                  Counsel Reauthorization Act of 1993

       1. Open Rule.--This amendment to the proposed rule provides 
     for a 2-hour, open rule for the consideration of H.R. 811, 
     the ``Independent Counsel Reauthorization Act,'' and makes 
     the Judiciary Committee's amendment in the nature of a 
     substitute in order as an original bill for the purpose of 
     amendment under the five-minute rule. Sec. 302(f) of the 
     Budget Act and clause 5(a), rule XXI are waived against the 
     bill, and 5(a), rule XXI is waived against the substitute.
       VOTE (Defeated 5-5): Yeas--Solomon, Quillen, Dreier, Goss, 
     Beilenson; Nays--Derrick, Frost, Bonior, Gordon, Slaughter. 
     Not voting: Moakley, Hall, Wheat.
       2. Clinger No. 1.--``Executive Office Accountability Act of 
     1994'' Amends the Inspector General Act of 1978 to establish 
     an Office of Inspector General within the Executive Office of 
     the President.
       VOTE (Defeated 4-5): Yeas--Solomon, Quillen, Dreier, Goss; 
     Nays--Derrick, Beilenson, Bonior, Gordon, Slaughter. Not 
     voting: Moakley, Frost, Hall, Wheat.
       3. (En Bloc)--A) Hyde No. 3.--Ensures that the independent 
     counsel complies with all laws and regulations regarding the 
     use and disclosure of classified information. B) Hyde No. 
     5.--Provides that the division of the court, which appoints 
     an independent counsel, will specifically and precisely state 
     the exact purpose of the investigation. In addition, the 
     initial jurisdiction would be limited to the alleged 
     violations of criminal law that prompted the appointment of 
     the Independent Counsel. C) Hyde No. 8.--Strikes provision in 
     the bill which states that ``no officer or employee of the 
     Administrative Office of the United States Court shall 
     disclose information related to an independent counsel's 
     expenditures, personnel, or administrative acts or 
     arrangements without the authorization of the independent 
     counsel''. D) Hyde No. 9.--Prohibits the federal government 
     from taking an adverse personnel action regarding an 
     individual being investigated or prosecuted by an independent 
     counsel, unless a conviction has been handed down. E) Hyde 
     No. 10.--Encourages the appointment of state & local 
     prosecutors as independent counsels.
       VOTE (Defeated 4-4): Yeas--Solomon, Quillen, Dreier, Goss; 
     Nays--Derrick, Bonior, Gordon, Slaughter. Present: Beilenson. 
     Not voting: Moakley, Frost, Hall Wheat.
       4. Hyde No. 6.--Allows the division of the court to 
     terminate an independent counsel once it determines that an 
     investigation has been substantially completed.
       VOTE (Defeated 4-5): Yeas--Solomon, Quillen, Dreier, Goss; 
     Nays--Moakley, Derrick, Bonior, Gordon, Slaughter. Present: 
     Beilenson. Not voting: Frost, Hall, Wheat.
       5. Hyde No. 7.--Provides that an individual would receive 
     their attorney fees if they are acquitted or if their 
     convictions are overturned on appeal.
       VOTE (Defeated 5-5): Yeas--Solomon, Quillen, Dreier, Goss, 
     Beilenson; Nays--Moakley, Derrick, Bonior, Gordon, Slaughter. 
     Not voting: Frost, Hall Wheat.
       6. (En Bloc).--A) Fish No. 12.--Requires that independent 
     counsel comply with established Justice Department policies 
     regarding the expenditures of funds. B) Fish No. 14.)--
     Provides that the independent counsel shall comply with the 
     established policies of the Department of Justice with 
     respect to enforcement of criminal laws and the release of 
     information relating to criminal proceedings.
       VOTE (Defeated 4-5): Yeas--Solomon, Quillen, Dreier, Goss; 
     Nays--Moakley, Derrick, Bonior, Gordon, Slaughter. Not 
     voting: Beilenson, Frost, Hall, Wheat.
       7. Meyers No. 17.--Requires that an independent counsel's 
     final report be limited to discussion of specific illegal 
     actions investigated and the outcome of any prosecution.
       VOTE (Defeated 4-5): Yeas--Solomon, Quillen, Dreier, Goss; 
     Nays--Moakley, Derrick, Bonior, Gordon, Slaughter. Not 
     voting: Beilenson, Frost, Hall, Wheat.
       8. Gekas No. 19--Requires an independent counsel to apply 
     for reappointment every two years.
       VOTE (Defeated 4-5): Yeas--Solomon, Quillen, Dreier, Goss; 
     Nays--Moakley, Derrick, Bonior, Gordon, Slaughter. Not 
     voting: Beilenson, Frost, Hall, Wheat.
       9. Gekas No. 20--Provides that after two years in office 
     the independent counsel's office would be subject to the 
     appropriations process.
       VOTE (Defeated 4-5): Yeas--Solomon, Quillen, Dreier, Goss; 
     Nays--Moakley, Derrick, Bonior, Gordon, Slaughter. Not 
     voting: Beilenson, Frost, Hall, Wheat.
       10. Traficant No. 2--Adds a new section to the Act to give 
     the Attorney General authority to have an independent counsel 
     appointed to investigate allegations that Justice Department 
     attorneys engaged in prosecutorial misconduct, corruption, or 
     fraud.
       VOTE (Defeated 4-5): Yeas--Solomon, Quillen, Dreier, Goss; 
     Nays--Moakley, Derrick, Bonior, Gordon, Slaughter. Not 
     voting: Beilenson, Frost, Hall, Wheat.
       11. Gekas No. 18--Mandatory Congressional Coverage & Bryant 
     No. 27--Discretionary Congressional Coverage (King-of-the-
     Hill).
       VOTE (Defeated 4-5): Yeas--Solomon, Quillen, Dreier, Goss; 
     Nays--Moakley, Derrick, Bonior, Gordon, Slaughter. Not 
     voting: Beilenson, Frost, Hall, Wheat.
       12. Adoption of rule--
       VOTE (ADOPTED 5-4): Yeas--Moakley, Derrick, Bonior, Gordon, 
     Slaughter; Nays--Solomon, Quillen, Dreier, Goss. Not voting: 
     Beilenson, Frost, Hall, Wheat.

                                  OPEN VERSUS RESTRICTIVE RULES 95TH-103D CONG.                                 
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                                                              Open rules       Restrictive rules
                      Congress (years)                       Total rules ---------------------------------------
                                                              granted\1\  Number  Percent\2\  Number  Percent\3\
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
95th (1977-78).............................................          211     179         85       32         15 
96th (1979-80).............................................          214     161         75       53         25 
97th (1981-82).............................................          120      90         75       30         25 
98th (1983-84).............................................          155     105         68       50         32 
99th (1985-86).............................................          115      65         57       50         43 
100th (1987-88)............................................          123      66         54       57         46 
101st (1989-90)............................................          104      47         45       57         55 
102d (1991-92).............................................          109      37         34       72         66 
103d (1993-94).............................................           55      12         22       43         78 
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
\1\Total rules counted are all order of business resolutions reported from the Rules Committee which provide for
  the initial consideration of legislation, except rules on appropriations bills which only waive points of     
  order. Original jurisdiction measures reported as privileged are also not counted.                            
\2\Open rules are those which permit any Member to offer any germane amendment to a measure so long as it is    
  otherwise in compliance with the rules of the House. The parenthetical percentages are open rules as a percent
  of total rules granted.                                                                                       
\3\Restrictive rules are those which limit the number of amendments which can be offered, and include so-called 
  modified open and modified closed rules, as well as completely closed rule, and rules providing for           
  consideration in the House as opposed to the Committee of the Whole. The parenthetical percentages are        
  restrictive rules as a percent of total rules granted.                                                        
                                                                                                                
Sources: ``Rules Committee Calendars & Surveys of Activities,'' 95th-102d Cong.; ``Notices of Action Taken,''   
  Committee on Rules, 103d Cong., through Feb. 9, 1994.                                                         


                                                        OPEN VERSUS RESTRICTIVE RULES: 103D CONG.                                                       
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                  Rule                                      Amendments                                                                  
   Rule number date reported      type       Bill number and subject         submitted         Amendments allowed         Disposition of rule and date  
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
H. Res. 58, Feb. 2, 1993......  MC        H.R. 1: Family and medical     30 (D-5; R-25)..  3 (D-0; R-3)..............  PQ: 246-176. A: 259-164. (Feb. 3,
                                           leave.                                                                       1993).                          
H. Res. 59, Feb. 3, 1993......  MC        H.R. 2: National Voter         19 (D-1; R-18)..  1 (D-0; R-1)..............  PQ: 248-171. A: 249-170. (Feb. 4,
                                           Registration Act.                                                            1993).                          
H. Res. 103, Feb. 23, 1993....  C         H.R. 920: Unemployment         7 (D-2; R-5)....  0 (D-0; R-0)..............  PQ: 243-172. A: 237-178. (Feb.   
                                           compensation.                                                                24, 1993).                      
H. Res. 106, Mar. 2, 1993.....  MC        H.R. 20: Hatch Act amendments  9 (D-1; R-8)....  3 (D-0; R-3)..............  PQ: 248-166. A: 249-163. (Mar. 3,
                                                                                                                        1993).                          
H. Res. 119, Mar. 9, 1993.....  MC        H.R. 4: NIH Revitalization     13 (d-4; R-9)...  8 (D-3; R-5)..............  PQ: 247-170. A: 248-170. (Mar.   
                                           Act of 1993.                                                                 10, 1993).                      
H. Res. 132, Mar. 17, 1993....  MC        H.R. 1335: Emergency           37 (D-8; R-29)..  1(not submitted) (D-1; R-   A: 240-185. (Mar. 18, 1993).     
                                           supplemental Appropriations.                     0).                                                         
H. Res. 133, Mar. 17, 1993....  MC        H. Con. Res. 64: Budget        14 (D-2; R-12)..  4 (1-D not submitted) (D-   PQ: 250-172. A: 251-172. (Mar.   
                                           resolution.                                      2; R-2).                    18, 1993).                      
H. Res. 138, Mar. 23, 1993....  MC        H.R. 670: Family planning      20 (D-8; R-12)..  9 (D-4; R-5)..............  PQ: 252-164. A: 247-169. (Mar.   
                                           amendments.                                                                  24, 1993).                      
H. Res. 147, Mar. 31, 1993....  C         H.R. 1430: Increase Public     6 (D-1; R-5)....  0 (D-0; R-0)..............  PQ: 244-168. A: 242-170. (Apr. 1,
                                           debt limit.                                                                  1993).                          
H. Res. 149 Apr. 1, 1993......  MC        H.R. 1578: Expedited           8 (D-1; R-7)....  3 (D-1; R-2)..............  A: 212-208. (Apr. 28, 1993).     
                                           Rescission Act of 1993.                                                                                      
H. Res. 164, May 4, 1993......  O         H.R. 820: Nate                 NA..............  NA........................  A: Voice Vote. (May 5, 1993).    
                                           Competitiveness Act.                                                                                         
H. Res. 171, May 18, 1993.....  O         H.R. 873: Gallatin Range Act   NA..............  NA........................  A: Voice Vote. (May 20, 1993).   
                                           of 1993.                                                                                                     
H. Res. 172, May 18, 1993.....  O         H.R. 1159: Passenger Vessel    NA..............  NA........................  A: 308-0 (May 24, 1993).         
                                           Safety Act.                                                                                                  
H. Res. 173 May 18, 1993......  MC        S.J. Res. 45: United States    6 (D-1; R-5)....  6 (D-1; R-5)..............  A: Voice Vote (May 20, 1993)     
                                           forces in Somalia.                                                                                           
H. Res. 183, May 25, 1993.....  O         H.R. 2244: 2d supplemental     NA..............  NA........................  A: 251-174. (May 26, 1993).      
                                           appropriations.                                                                                              
H. Res. 186, May 27, 1993.....  MC        H.R. 2264: Omnibus budget      51 (D-19; R-32).  8 (D-7; R-1)..............  PQ: 252-178. A: 236-194 (May 27, 
                                           reconciliation.                                                              1993).                          
H. Res. 192, June 9, 1993.....  MC        H.R. 2348: Legislative branch  50 (D-6; R-44)..  6 (D-3; R-3)..............  PQ: 240-177. A: 226-185. (June   
                                           appropriations.                                                              10, 1993).                      
H. Res. 193, June 10, 1993....  O         H.R. 2200: NASA authorization  NA..............  NA........................  A: Voice Vote. (June 14, 1993).  
H. Res. 195, June 14, 1993....  MC        H.R. 5: Striker replacement..  7 (D-4; R-3)....  2 (D-1; R-1)..............  A: 244-176.. (June 15, 1993).    
H. Res. 197, June 15, 1993....  MO        H.R. 2333: State Department.   53 (D-20; R-33).  27 (D-12; R-15)...........  A: 294-129. (June 16, 1993).     
                                           H.R. 2404: Foreign aid.                                                                                      
H. Res. 199, June 16, 1993....  C         H.R. 1876: Ext. of ``Fast      NA..............  NA........................  A: Voice Vote. (June 22, 1993).  
                                           Track''.                                                                                                     
H. Res. 200, June 16, 1993....  MC        H.R. 2295: Foreign operations  33 (D-11; R-22).  5 (D-1; R-4)..............  A: 263-160. (June 17, 1993).     
                                           appropriations.                                                                                              
H. Res. 201, June 17, 1993....  O         H.R. 2403: Treasury-postal     NA..............  NA........................  A: Voice Vote. (June 17, 1993).  
                                           appropriations.                                                                                              
H. Res. 203, June 22, 1993....  MO        H.R. 2445: Energy and Water    NA..............  NA........................  A: Voice Vote. (June 23, 1993).  
                                           appropriations.                                                                                              
H. Res. 206, June 23, 1993....  O         H.R. 2150: Coast Guard         NA..............  NA........................  A: 401-0. (July 30, 1993).       
                                           authorization.                                                                                               
H. Res. 217, July 14, 1993....  MO        H.R. 2010: National Service    NA..............  NA........................  A: 261-164. (July 21, 1993).     
                                           Trust Act.                                                                                                   
H. Res. 218, July 20, 1993....  O         H.R. 2530: BLM authorization,  NA..............  NA........................  .................................
                                           fiscal year 1994-95.                                                                                         
H. Res. 220, July 21, 1993....  MC        H.R. 2667: Disaster            14 (D-8; R-6)...  2 (D-2; R-0)..............  PQ: 245-178. F: 205-216. (July   
                                           assistance supplemental.                                                     22, 1993).                      
H. Res. 226, July 23, 1993....  MC        H.R. 2667: Disaster            15 (D-8; R-7)...  2 (D-2; R-0)..............  A: 224-205. (July 27, 1993).     
                                           assistance supplemental.                                                                                     
H. Res. 229, July 28, 1993....  MO        H.R. 2330: Intelligence        NA..............  NA........................  A: Voice Vote. (Aug. 3, 1993).   
                                           Authority Act, fiscal year                                                                                   
                                           1994.                                                                                                        
H. Res. 230, July 28, 1993....  O         H.R. 1964: Maritime            NA..............  NA........................  A: Voice Vote. (July 29, 1993).  
                                           Administration authority.                                                                                    
H. Res. 246, Aug. 6, 1993.....  MO        H.R. 2401: National Defense    149 (D-109; R-    ..........................  A: 246-172. (Sept. 8, 1993).     
                                           authority.                     40).                                                                          
H. Res. 248, Sept. 9, 1993....  MO        H.R. 2401: National defense    ................  ..........................  PQ: 237-169. A: 234-169. (Sept.  
                                           authorization.                                                               13, 1993).                      
H. Res. 250, Sept. 13, 1993...  MC        H.R. 1340: RTC Completion Act  12 (D-3; R-9)...  1 (D-1; R-0)..............  A: 213-191-1. (Sept. 14, 1993).  
H. Res. 254, Sept. 22, 1993...  MO        H.R. 2401: National Defense    ................  91 (D-67; R-24)...........  A: 241-182. (Sept. 28, 1993).    
                                           authorization.                                                                                               
H. Res. 262, Sept. 28, 1993...  O         H.R. 1845: National            NA..............  NA........................  A: 238-188 (10/06/93).           
                                           Biological Survey Act.                                                                                       
H. Res. 264, Sept. 28, 1993...  MC        H.R. 2351: Arts, humanities,   7 (D-0; R-7)....  3 (D-0; R-3)..............  PQ: 240-185. A: 225-195. (Oct.   
                                           museums.                                                                     14, 1993).                      
H. Res. 265, Sept. 29, 1993...  MC        H.R. 3167: Unemployment        3 (D-1; R-2)....  2 (D-1; R-1)..............  A: 239-150. (Oct. 15, 1993).     
                                           compensation amendments.                                                                                     
H. Res. 269, Oct. 6, 1993.....  MO        H.R. 2739: Aviation            N/A.............  N/A.......................  A: Voice Vote. (Oct. 7, 1993).   
                                           infrastructure investment.                                                                                   
H. Res. 273, Oct. 12, 1993....  MC        H.R. 3167: Unemployment        3 (D-1; R-2)....  2 (D-1; R-1)..............  PQ: 235-187. F: 149-254. (Oct.   
                                           compensation amendments.                                                     14, 1993).                      
H. Res. 274, Oct. 12, 1993....  MC        H.R. 1804: Goals 2000 Educate  15 (D-7; R-7; I-  10 (D-7; R-3).............  A: Voice Vote. (Oct. 13, 1993).  
                                           America Act.                   1).                                                                           
H. Res. 282, Oct. 20, 1993....  C         H.J. Res. 281: Continuing      N/A.............  N/A.......................  A: Voice Vote. (Oct. 21, 1993).  
                                           appropriations through Oct.                                                                                  
                                           28, 1993.                                                                                                    
H. Res. 286, Oct. 27, 1993....  O         H.R. 334: Lumbee Recognition   N/A.............  N/A.......................  A: Voice Vote. (Oct. 28, 1993).  
                                           Act.                                                                                                         
H. Res. 287, Oct. 27, 1993....  C         H.J. Res. 283: Continuing      1 (D-0; R-0)....  0.........................  A: 252-170. (Oct. 28, 1993).     
                                           appropriations resolution.                                                                                   
H. Res. 289, Oct. 28, 1993....  O         H.R. 2151: Maritime Security   N/A.............  N/A.......................  A: Voice Vote. (Nov. 3, 1993).   
                                           Act of 1993.                                                                                                 
H. Res. 293, Nov. 4, 1993.....  MC        H. Con. Res. 170: Troop        N/A.............  N/A.......................  A: 390-8. (Nov. 8, 1993).        
                                           withdrawal Somalia.                                                                                          
H. Res. 299, Nov. 8, 1993.....  MO        H.R. 1036: Employee            2 (D-1; R-1)....  N/A.......................  A: Voice Vote. (Nov. 9, 1993).   
                                           Retirement Act-1993.                                                                                         
H. Res. 302, Nov. 9, 1993.....  MC        H.R. 1025: Brady handgun bill  17 (D-6; R-11)..  4 (D-1; R-3)..............  A: 238-182. (Nov. 10, 1993).     
H. Res. 303, Nov. 9, 1993.....  O         H.R. 322: Mineral exploration  N/A.............  N/A.......................  A: Voice Vote. (Nov. 16, 1993).  
H. Res. 304, Nov. 9, 1993.....  C         H.J. Res. 288: Further CR, FY  N/A.............  N/A.......................  .................................
                                           1994.                                                                                                        
H. Res. 312, Nov. 17, 1993....  MC        H.R. 3425: EPA Cabinet Status  27 (D-8; R-19)..  9 (D-1; R-8)..............  F: 191-227. (Feb. 2, 1994).      
H. Res. 313, Nov. 17, 1993....  MC        H.R. 796: Freedom Access to    15 (D-9; R-6)...  4 (D-1; R-3)..............  A: 233-192. (Nov. 18, 1993).     
                                           Clinics.                                                                                                     
H. Res. 314, Nov. 17, 1993....  MC        H.R. 3351: Alt Methods Young   21 (D-7; R-14)..  6 (D-3; R-3)..............  A: 238-179. (Nov. 19, 1993).     
                                           Offenders.                                                                                                   
H. Res. 316, Nov. 19, 1993....  C         H.R. 51: D.C. statehood bill.  1 (D-1; R-0)....  N/A.......................  A: 252-172. (Nov. 20, 1993).     
H. Res. 319, Nov. 20, 1993....  MC        H.R. 3: Campaign Finance       35 (D-6; R-29)..  1 (D-0; R-1)..............  A: 220-207. (Nov. 21, 1993).     
                                           Reform.                                                                                                      
H. Res. 320, Nov. 20, 1993....  MC        H.R. 3400: Reinventing         34 (D-15; R-19).  3 (D-3; R-0)..............  A: 247-183. (Nov. 22, 1993).     
                                           Government.                                                                                                  
H. Res. 336, Feb. 2, 1994.....  MC        H.R. 3759: Emergency           14 (D-8; R-5; I-  5 (D-3; R-2)..............  PQ: 244-168. A: 342-65. (Feb. 3, 
                                           Supplemental Appropriations.   1).                                           1994).                          
H. Res. 352, Feb. 8, 1994.....  MC        H.R. 811: Independent Counsel  27 (D-8; R-19)..  10 (D-4; R-6).............  .................................
                                           Act.                                                                                                         
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Note.--Code: C-Closed; MC-Modified closed; MO-Modified open; O-Open; D-Democrat; R-Republican; PQ: Previous question; A-Adopted; F-Failed.              

  Mr. Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.
  Mr. DERRICK. Mr. Speaker, for purposes of debate only, I yield 2 
minutes to the gentleman from New Jersey [Mr. Torricelli].
  Mr. TORRICELLI. Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentleman for yielding time 
to me.
  I rise in support of the rule and, indeed, in support of the 
Independent Counsel Act.
  The Committee on Rules has met its obligation. In a bipartisan basis, 
alternatives and changes are available to the House, assuring that if 
it is the House's will, by the end of this day or no later than the 
next, this House will be covered. There will be an independent counsel 
statute providing for an appropriate threshold and a means of assuring 
public confidence in the operations of this House. Therefore, I urge 
its adoption and compliment the committee on providing the broad 
alternatives and the opportunity to settle, after so many years of 
debate, this nagging question.
  Mr. Speaker, I rise today, however, also on another subject and 
appreciate the committee yielding me the time. For some time it has 
been difficult to explain and may now be impossible to defend the 
administration's policies with regard to Bosnia. I understand the 
difficulty the administration faces and that there is an international 
embargo that cannot be violated by any one nation.

                              {time}  1330

  However, indeed, that does not answer the question of why the United 
States is enforcing an embargo with the U.S. Navy when arguably we no 
longer find it in our national interest.
  More inexplicable is why indeed, following the slaughter of last 
Saturday, the administration thinks there needs to be another week, or 
perhaps another provocation, before we can justify the elimination of 
the guns that are taking scores of lives, innocent lives, every day.
  I understand there are allies who disagree. I understand we might 
have to go it alone. However, indeed, our conscience, indeed our 
heritage, argues that we do no less. It is time to defend the 
defenseless in Bosnia and bring the slaughter to an end.
  Mr. GOSS. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume.
  Mr. Speaker, I thank the Speaker. I am not quite sure, we all have 
heartfelt concern about Bosnia on this side of the aisle, as the 
gentleman has outlined, but I am not quite sure how this is relevant to 
the debate on the rule. I can understand why the other side does not 
want to talk about this rule, but I hope we will talk a little bit more 
about it, because that is what is the subject before us.
  Mr. Speaker, to that end I yield 5 minutes to the distinguished 
gentleman from New York [Mr. Solomon], the ranking member of the 
Committee on Rules.
  Mr. SOLOMON. Mr. Speaker, I appreciate the gentleman yielding me 
time. Because American lives might be at stake here, I think I might 
just respond briefly to the previous speaker.
  Mr. Speaker, American foreign policy under Republican and Democrat 
administrations alike has always been to support and defend true 
democracies around the world from external attack. I call Members' 
attention to that: outside military aggression. Internal disputes and 
civil wars are another issue altogether.
  If we were to lift the arms embargo on the official Bosnian 
Government, which we should have done months ago and allow them to 
defend themselves and allow them to obtain the strategic weaponry 
necessary to defend themselves, without sending one American soldier 
into this civil war situation, that is the direction we ought to be 
going.
  Let us get back to the subject we rose to speak on.
  Mr. Speaker, this modified closed rule on a bill as important as the 
Independent Counsel Act is an insult to the entire House and the 
American people.
  Last week this House had the good sense to turn down a rule because 
it denied the House a right to consider an important amendment that was 
technically nongermane. This week, the Rules Committee does not even 
have that excuse with which to defend this rule.
  This rule blatantly and intentionally does not allow a large number 
of germane amendments--amendments offered in the Judiciary Committee.
  What is the excuse today? Frankly, I have not heard a good one yet--
either upstairs in the Rules Committee last night, or today on the 
floor of the House. The best that can be said is that the Rules 
Committee is making some decisions for the whole House thus saving us 
some time.
  The Rules Committee is sitting in judgment on the substance of major 
legislation and summarily executing certain amendments that it does not 
like for what ever reason.
  I, for one, Mr. Speaker, am fed up with the Rules Committee playing 
procedural nanny for this House as if we are a bunch of babies who are 
incapable of making decisions for ourselves and our constituents.
  How long are my colleagues on the other side of the aisle going to 
put up with this kind of Mary Poppins paternalism? How long are they 
going to run for cover behind her skirts and under her umbrella?
  Mr. Speaker, we offered an open rule in the Rules Committee and it 
was rejected on a 5 to 5 vote. One Democrat join us in support of that 
open rule, which is some progress.
  I might note, however, that the last time this Independent Counsel 
Act was reauthorized in 1987, we considered it under an open rule and 
the sky did not fall.
  After the open rule was rejected last night, we offered a series of 
other motions to make in order amendments submitted by various 
distinguished members of the Judiciary Committee:
  The ranking Republican, Mr. Fish, was denied two important amendments 
he had submitted;
  The very distinguished gentleman from Illinois [Mr. Hyde] was denied 
some seven amendments he had submitted; and
  Another hard-working member of that committee, the gentleman from 
Pennsylvania [Mr. Gekas], was denied two important amendments he had 
submitted.
  And on and on it went. Our motions were defeated, most on party line 
votes--some 12 motions in all. What has this House come to that we 
cannot seriously legislate anymore?
  Even a distinguished Democrat Member of the Rules Committee admitted, 
after sitting through all the testimony, that most of the amendments 
offered were serious and legitimate attempts to improve this 
legislation. But this House will not be permitted even to consider or 
vote on those amendments.
  Mr. Speaker, as if that were not enough, the Rules Committee devised 
an ingenious device to avoid a tough vote on the issue of mandatory 
congressional coverage by the independent counsel.
  It provided that the Gekas amendment which mandates such coverage can 
be trumped by a Bryant amendment that essentially restates what is 
already in the bill, and that is that congressional coverage is 
discretionary.
  What that means is that the House will have a chance to vote on a 
meaningless amendment in order to avoid a meaningful one. That is 
because, if we vote for the Bryant substitute for the Gekas amendment, 
the House will never get to a vote on the Gekas amendment.
  As one Democrat, perhaps unintentionally put it, ``the Bryant 
amendment gives congressional cover.''
  Yes, that is what this clever procedure is all about--giving Members 
cover instead of giving Congress coverage under a law we impose on the 
executive branch.
  And do not think the American people are not on to our evasion of the 
laws we impose on others. Here is another example.
  Let us face it, Mr. Speaker, this rule is a profile in cowardice!
  Mr. Speaker, I urge my colleagues to join us in voting down the 
previous question so that we can have an open rule that will allow all 
germane amendments to be considered under the regular order.
  That is what we did in 1987. Are we a lesser Congress and lesser 
legislators than we were then? I hope not.
  Vote ``No'' on the previous question so the House can vote ``Yes'' 
for an open rule.
  Mr. DERRICK. Mr. Speaker, for purposes of debate only, I yield 3 
minutes to the distinguished gentleman from Ohio [Mr. Traficant].
  (Mr. TRAFICANT asked and was given permission to revise and extend 
his remarks.)
  Mr. TRAFICANT. Mr. Speaker, I do not know. To a degree we have 
politicized all this business, and these bills have become the special 
prosecutor retirement plans and programs.
  I think this bill is flawed for one major reason, a grave sin of 
omission. The intent of this act is to provide a mechanism to avoid the 
potential conflicts of interest or the appearances of conflicts, or 
conflicting loyalties which could arise if, in fact, the Attorney 
General or the President had to conduct or supervise a criminal 
investigation of themselves or other high-level, high-profile political 
figures.
  This bill has been applied to political machinations in Washington 
that serve the purposes of Democrats and Republicans. Whichever side of 
the aisle one is on, we try and use it to make our point.
  I had an amendment that was a little different. The true, ultimate 
conflict in this whole process is when the Justice Department, the 
foxes in the henhouse, have to investigate and prosecute themselves.
  Nothing happens unless the Justice Department initiates it, and the 
so-called Traficant amendment said when the Attorney General finds 
credible evidence from credible witnesses that a U.S. attorney is in 
fact responsible for misconduct, prosecutorial misconduct, fraud, 
bribes, or any other allegations, that a special counsel, special 
independent investigator, would be assigned.

                              {time}  1340

  Without that, what do we have, folks? The Justice Department 
investigates themselves. Is that not why we have the law, for the 
Justice Department in the conflict of investigating the President? Is 
that not why we have the law? Then how in the hell can we stand to let 
the Justice Department investigate themselves?
  You see, the trouble with this bill is it is political. The Traficant 
amendment was about rights, because the people on the end of the list 
who are meting out the justice system by these U.S. attorneys are the 
American people whose rights have been ripped off with no recourse 
through some political process that Congress beats their chest about, 
but it does not do a damn thing for the people. It might solve the 
promises of the political aspirations here, but it does not help the 
people.
  Mr. GOSS. Mr. Speaker, will the gentleman yield?
  Mr. TRAFICANT. I yield to the gentleman from Florida.
  Mr. GOSS. Mr. Speaker, the gentleman makes fabulous points. 
Unfortunately, the gentleman may not know that his amendment was 
offered in the Rules Committee and was voted down, sadly. It was 
offered by Republicans because we do not think this should be a 
partisan issue. Unfortunately, it was the gentleman's own party that 
let him down.
  Mr. TRAFICANT. I have come to understand that, and I am disappointed. 
But the committee did not have any hearings, and I have asked the 
chairman. I will submit this in the form of a bill, and I have checked 
with the subcommittee chairman, the gentleman from Texas [Mr. Bryant]. 
I will submit it in the form of a bill and here is all I ask: If this 
be the Democrats, who for some reasons do not want to get the Justice 
Department mad, you know we are afraid of getting the IRS mad, and 
maybe we are afraid of getting the Justice Department mad, and I would 
like to, if I could, enter into a colloquy with Chairman Bryant and ask 
is it possible, because this was a new initiative that is germane, that 
I think should have been made in order, and I am going to submit it as 
a bill, and I would ask the chairman to give it that consideration, and 
is that possible?
  Mr. BRYANT. Mr. Speaker, will the gentleman yield?
  Mr. TRAFICANT. I yield to the gentleman from Texas.
  Mr. BRYANT. Mr. Speaker, first I would like to respond by saying that 
the gentleman's very strong remarks about the intent of the Rules 
Committee, or our intent in carrying this bill, I think, are perhaps a 
little bit stronger than they should be, to say the least. The 
gentleman's proposal had never been heard before by the subcommittee, 
and I was unaware of it, and I was not even aware that the gentleman 
was going to be asking to have it made in order in the Rules Committee. 
If we are going to take a step like this, it should require careful 
study and hearings. It is for a different treatment from the purposes 
of this bill, which are very noble and good.
  Mr. TRAFICANT. Taking back my time, if the gentleman did not have a 
chance to study it, it was germane, and we can study some of these 
rights issues for 50 years. Will the gentleman give me the 
consideration to look at the bill?
  The SPEAKER pro tempore (Mr. Torricelli). The time of the gentleman 
from Ohio [Mr. Traficant] has expired.
  Mr. GOSS. Mr. Speaker, I am happy to yield 30 seconds to the 
gentleman from Ohio.
  Mr. TRAFICANT. Mr. Speaker, I yield to the gentleman from Texas [Mr. 
Bryant] to ask him if he would give me the consideration of a hearing 
and studying this bill.
  Mr. BRYANT. Mr. Speaker, as I stated just a moment ago, I think we 
will give careful consideration to it, and perhaps have a hearing. But 
having just heard about it in the last 15 minutes, I would not want to 
make a commitment in regard to hearings.
  Mr. TRAFICANT. In concluding my time, let me say that I sat around 
over there for 4 hours. I am not on the Judiciary Committee. But I want 
to say this to the Rules Committee: This is a germane amendment, and it 
is the only one that deals with the rights and preserves and protects 
the rights of the American people. And we had better start becoming a 
special interest concern group for the American people.
  Mr. GOSS. Mr. Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the distinguished 
gentleman from the Commonwealth of Pennsylvania [Mr. Clinger], the 
ranking member on the Committee on Government Operations.
  (Mr. CLINGER asked and was given permission to revise and extend his 
remarks.)
  Mr. CLINGER. Mr. Speaker, the rule fails to allow significant 
amendments. Why the majority party finds it necessary to strangle 
debate when we have the time to debate the issues honestly and openly, 
is a question the American people deserve to have answered.
  I am particularly disappointed that the Rules Committee rejected my 
amendment to H.R. 811, which like the independent counsel legislation, 
was intended to further confidence in Government--this time, as it 
concerns the operations of the White House.
  The amendment sought to establish an independent inspector general 
and a chief financial officer within the Executive Office of the 
President. An internal watchdog, and annual, audited financial 
statements, would have gone a long ways toward ensuring public 
confidence in the operations of the White House. Known independently as 
the Executive Office Accountability Act, this measure has been 
cosponsored by every Member of the Republican leadership and 15 members 
of the Government Operations Committee.
  We could all cite examples of past White House mismanagement and 
malfeasance in both Republican and Democratic administrations: the 
misuse of travel resources; the travel office debacle; skirting of 
procurement laws to buy millions of dollars worth of unnecessary 
equipment; and retroactive personnel and pay actions. Episodes such as 
these only fuel the pessimism and mistrust Americans feel toward their 
Government.
  If my amendment looked like a political statement then the Rules 
Committee failed to read it carefully. An honest consideration of my 
proposal reveals that it was crafted not with a Democrat President in 
mind, but with any President in mind. An inspector general can be a 
valuable resource for the Nation's Chief Executive. The Executive 
Office of the President is a huge complex with outlays of nearly $200 
million in fiscal year 1993. The Executive Office of the President 
[EOP] conducts countless administrative tasks such as payroll actions 
and travel reimbursement. No other organization in the executive branch 
allows so many routine administrative tasks to go unchecked and 
unaudited. And, it is only these routine, administrative tasks which I 
hope to reach with my inspector general proposal.
  When drafting this legislation I went to great lengths to give the 
President authority over his inspector general enjoyed by no other 
Government official. Both the inspector general and the chief financial 
officer at the White House are appointed by and under the direct 
control of the President himself. The President has full power to 
prohibit or suspend any IG review which he believes interferes with his 
constitutional authority as President or Commander in Chief. The 
amendment provides the inspector general with adequate tools to serve 
as an independent watchdog, while ensuring that Presidential authority 
is not improperly infringed.
  I sincerely believe that this is an amendment President Clinton would 
have thanked Congress for passing in the months ahead. But the Rule 
Committee is denying him the benefits an IG and a CFO have to offer, 
and denying this body the opportunity for honest, open debate.
  If you believe in the concepts supporting enactment of the 
independent counsel legislation, and you believe that all Government 
functions should be held accountable, then I urge you to oppose this 
rule.
  Mr. DERRICK. Mr. Speaker, for the purposes of debate only, I yield 4 
minutes to the gentleman from Texas [Mr. Bryant].
  (Mr. BRYANT asked and was given permission to revise and extend his 
remarks.)
  Mr. BRYANT. Mr. Speaker, I would like to say that I regret very much 
the remarks I heard the gentleman from Florida [Mr. Goss], and the 
gentleman from New York [Mr. Solomon], make a moment ago, and in saying 
that, I am basically repeating my statement from the Rules Committee 
meeting of yesterday. The fact of the matter is this rule is very fair. 
It allows a vote on the question of whether or not there ought to be 
mandatory coverage of Members of Congress. It allows two votes on it.
  If Members want mandatory coverage of Members of Congress, then vote 
against the Bryant amendment. If they want mandatory coverage of 
Members of Congress, vote for the Hyde amendment. The rule allows two 
votes on this issue. For a Member to stand on the floor of the House 
and say it does not allow a vote on this issue is just, in my view, a 
simple case of misleading the Members of the House.
  This rule makes in order 10 amendments. Six of them are Republican 
amendments and four of them are Democratic amendments. And it provides 
two clear alternatives, a Democratic alternative and a Republican 
alternative on the issue of coverage for Members of Congress. And it 
makes in order a Republican substitute for the entire bill which 
includes virtually every amendment offered in the Judiciary Committee 
on the Republican side as well as several other amendments.
  Mr. Speaker, I would just like to say that it occurs to me that this 
institution needs a defense by the Members here that know better from 
some of the allegations that were made a moment ago. There is no 
evidence of hesitancy on the part of an Attorney General or Justice 
Department to prosecute Members of the House of Representatives. I 
cannot remember a time during the last 11 years when there was not some 
type of a prosecution of that nature going on.
  The fact of the matter is the amendment I offered says that the 
Attorney General can, when it appears that it is in the public 
interest, designate an independent counsel to carry on the 
investigation of a Member of Congress. But she does not have to do so. 
Why? Because the independent counsel bill was designed to cover about 
60 members of the executive branch who we have assumed that the 
Attorney General could not objectively investigate because they are her 
colleagues.
  Advocates of mandatory Member coverage would increase that to 600 
people, thereby impeding the ability of the Attorney General to take up 
a routine investigation of a Member of Congress without having to go 
through the cumbersome process of an independent counsel.
  I would submit to the Members that, even if they disagree with my 
analysis, for some to claim that the Rules Committee is somehow denying 
Members of the House the opportunity to vote on this issue, is, in my 
view, the product of a purposeful, partisan strategy which some Members 
are bringing to the floor today to attempt to disgrace this 
institution. I believe this institution is full of good people. But I 
think it is quite often the case that groups within this institution 
sit together in the evenings and develop strategies that are designed 
to reflect well on them at the expense of everybody else. And I think 
that description characterizes the rhetoric we have heard today.

                              {time}  1350

  You say that somehow we are trying to keep the American people from 
being able to have an independent prosecutor pursue a Member of 
Congress that somehow we are involved in some great coverup. I would 
remind you, I say to the gentleman from New York [Mr. Solomon] and the 
gentleman from Florida [Mr. Goss], in 1987 when this matter was brought 
up on the floor of the House, the gentleman from New York [Mr. Fish], 
the ranking Republican member of the Committee on the Judiciary, voted 
against mandatory Member coverage. Was he involved in some coverup? Of 
course not. So, for goodness sake, soften your rhetoric.
  Let us talk about facts here. Drop the demagogery. Let us get back to 
dealing with the real issues before the House, and that is what kind of 
an independent-counsel statute we ought to have. Let us make it apply 
to the 60 people it ought to apply to, and in those unusual cases where 
the Attorney General thinks it is in the public interest, she can 
choose an independent counsel to pursue a Member of Congress. But do 
not tell the public and do not tell the Members of this House that they 
are not being given the opportunity to vote on this issue, because they 
are.
  Mr. GOSS. Mr. Speaker, I have profound respect for the gentleman. I 
differ dramatically from his characterization, and I will stick to my 
guns, and I think the gentleman from New York [Mr. Solomon] will. We 
will find out.
  Mr. Speaker, I yield minute to the gentleman from New York [Mr. 
Solomon].
  Mr. SOLOMON. Mr. Speaker, I would just say to the previous gentleman 
who was speaking that I do not have the time to yield. But he came 
close to having his words taken down when he talks about demagogery. We 
did not do that, out of respect to him.
  Let me just say this: The American people want the U.S. Congress, 
Members of Congress, covered under this Independent Counsel Act. The 
Gekas amendment does just that.
  The truth of the matter is the House is not going to have the 
opportunity to vote for that on the floor, because it is the intention 
of the gentleman from Texas [Mr. Bryant], according to his testimony in 
the Committee on Rules, to offer a substitute knocking out the Gekas 
amendment. That means he is putting right back the same language as is 
in the bill now.
  If it was not a subterfuge, then why is he even bothering to offer 
his amendment knocking out Gekas?
  If we simply have an up-and-down vote on Gekas, and if the gentleman 
from Pennsylvania [Mr. Gekas] fails, then the Bryant language is 
already back in the bill.
  Who can explain that?
  Mr. DERRICK. Mr. Speaker, for purposes of debate only, I yield 4\1/2\ 
minutes to the distinguished gentleman from Massachusetts [Mr. Frank].
  Mr. FRANK of Massachusetts. Mr. Speaker, first, I want to respond to 
one thing the gentleman from New York said that I am sure even he would 
admit was mistaken if he thinks about it, when he said this was Mary 
Poppins paternalism. If it was anything, it would have had to have been 
Mary Poppins maternalism. I am sure the gentleman from New York, on 
sober reflection, would agree with me.
  Mr. Speaker, I want to talk about this terrible procedure we just 
heard about where an amendment that is the base text of the bill is 
offered. Why, that is such an outrageous procedure that the last time I 
heard of it it was in the armed services bill on the question of gays 
in the military, and it was supported by the Republicans that we do it 
that way. That was the amendment offered by the gentleman from Missouri 
[Mr. Skelton].
  The fact is that this Republican preference for open rules is the 
most occasional burning passion I have ever seen. I have rarely seen 
people so intermittently zealously committed to a principle which they 
are prepared to abandon on alternate days of the week, because I will 
tell you that during the past 12 years that I have been here I have 
fought against Republicans time and again, because I wanted amendments 
to tax bills and trade bills.

  When we dealt with the question of fast track on NAFTA, one of the 
great issues that drove this issue, and the gentleman from Michigan 
[Mr. Levin] had an amendment that he wanted to make in order dealing 
with the terms under which NAFTA was debated, the Committee on Rules 
would not let it happen, and the overwhelming majority of the 
Republicans were there voting with the Committee on Rules, voting on 
the Committee on Rules to keep it out.
  If people wanted a rule that we are always going to have open rules, 
OK, but let us not have this inconsistency masking itself as burning 
principle.
  Second, let us talk about what would have happened if we had an open 
rule. First of all, I think the amendment offered by the gentleman from 
Pennsylvania would have been out of order. We have two arguments on the 
Republican side: First, you are spending too much money on the 
independent-counsel issue; and second, you are not spending nearly 
enough money on the independent-counsel issue.
  Because right now about 60 people are automatically covered because 
they are that close to the President than it is inconceivable to think 
that there would be objectivity.
  With Members of Congress, we said there may be a problem and there 
may not be and we will leave it up to the Attorney General. They would 
increase by a factor of 1,000 percent the number of people covered 
automatically. It would go from 60 to 600. There are 60 of them, and 
then there would be 550 of us. Let us assume that we are twice as 
honest as they are, that would cost five times more. If you assume we 
are half as honest as they are, that would cost 20 times more, because 
when you go from 60 covered people to 600 covered people, you 
dramatically increase the cost.
  I do not believe my friend from Pennsylvania had CBO score this. I 
think he is in violation of the pay-go, because this will inevitably 
cost more money, unless you are prepared to vouch for the insistence 
that no Member of Congress will ever again be investigated, and I do no 
think so. I wish, but I do not think so.
  So the fact is that we are talking about a rule which presents every 
important issue, and I have been dealing with the independent-counsel 
statute as a member of the committee since I got here, every important 
issue will be before the floor of the House.
  Why is it not a totally open rule, in addition to trying to help out 
our friend, the gentleman from Pennsylvania? You heard it here, 10 
amendments are in order, 3 of them noncontroversial, en bloc from the 
chairman, 7 other amendments of some controversy, and then they said 2 
were turned down by this one and 2 from this one, 7 from this one and 1 
from that one. There were 27 amendments offered. Take 27 amendments, 
debate each one of them for a couple of hours, have a rollcall, and you 
do not get a bill in time, and that might suit some people.
  Because on the whole, the Republican Party has been trying to slow 
this bill down. In fact, in the Senate 14 Republicans, including the 
assistant leader of the Republicans in the Senate, the gentleman from 
Wyoming, voted to keep Member coverage the way it is in the Bryant 
amendment, and the justification for having the Bryant amendment and 
the Gekas amendment this way is this, it is to prevent the distortion 
that might come from people who would say people voting for the Bryant 
position were against Member coverage. Members are covered here.
  There have been four Republicans to be Attorney General since the 
independent-counsel statute was adopted, adopted, by the way, by 
Democrats under a Democratic President; not Ed Meese, not William 
French Smith, not Richard Thornburgh, and not William Barr, no 
Republican Attorney General, not one of the four Republican Attorneys 
General that served under the independent-counsel bill have used his 
unquestioned, unchallenged authority to appoint an independent counsel. 
Any one of the four of them anytime a Member of Congress was accused of 
something could have invoked the independent-counsel provision.

  They indicted Republicans. They indicted Democrats. They were not 
holding back that I can see.
  After four Republican Attorneys General under two Republican 
Presidents consistently said, ``We do not need the independent-counsel 
statute for Members of Congress,'' I am hard pressed to believe wholly 
in the importance of making that drastic, expensive change right now.
  Mr. GOSS. Mr. Speaker, I yield 5 minutes to the distinguished 
gentleman from Pennsylvania [Mr. Gekas], who is on the Committee on the 
Judiciary and who I think is going to recharacterize some of the 
creative inspiration we have just heard.
  (Mr. GEKAS asked and was given permission to revise and extend his 
remarks.)
  Mr. GEKAS. Mr. Speaker, Members of the House, I thank the gentleman 
for yielding me this time.
  I want to be brutally frank with Barney to start the discussion that 
I want to place in the Congressional Record, and to the effect that 
brutally frank as he was, he was incorrect on his assertion that my 
amendment would not be in order or not be found and no point of order 
and so forth, because I am not going to yield now, Barney. I am just 
refuting what you are saying, and then later you can come back on the 
floor if you want. At this moment I ask you to sit down and listen to 
me carefully, because I am very intent, as intent as you were during 
your presentation.
  In any event, we have learned from the Parliamentarian, the 
Department of Justice, from the gentleman from New York [Mr. Solomon], 
and everybody else interested in this that there is no point of order 
placeable against the Gekas amendment, and if that was the thrust of 
what the gentleman from Massachusetts was saying, he was dead wrong. If 
there is some modification of that he wishes to make, he may gain some 
time and modify it at a later point.
  In the meantime, what has been said here and what has been affirmed 
and reaffirmed by the gentleman from Texas [Mr. Bryant], my excellent 
friend with whom I have coworked on 1,000 issues, is that the bill and 
the Gekas amendment are the points of confrontation, and that the 
Bryant amendment simply comes in from behind this whole episode and 
readopts the bill language so that the Members of the Democratic Caucus 
can have cover.
  Some people allege when they vote on Bryant that they will be working 
for Congressional coverage to match the bill and overcome Gekas.

                              {time}  1400

  Now, wait a minute; that is too complicated. Let us put it this way: 
Bill and Bryant are the same, bill/Bryant; bill/Bryant have the same 
language. The bill and Bryant who comes in at the end of the cycle. 
Bill/Bryant is the same language; they say the Attorney General may, in 
the discretion of the Attorney General may--maybe, might--may bring an 
action and call for independent counsel against a Member of Congress 
when allegations are suitable to that are made.
  ``May.'' And that is exactly what the people of the United States 
from corner to corner are aghast at seeing time after time on the floor 
of the House and in the Congress in general, that we play favorites 
with ourselves, that we place ourselves in a category different from 
the ordinary citizen in one instance, and from other people in 
Government in a second instance. May, now, the Gekas amendment simply 
does the Bryants of the world a favor; it takes bill/Bryant's word for 
it that he, bill/Bryant, wants the Members of Congress to be possible 
targets of independent counsel. We help bill/Bryant in the Gekas 
amendment, elevating Members of Congress to the same stratum of 
possible targets of independent counsel as are members of the 
executive. That is what the American people want: for us to do away 
with the appearance of favoritism on our part, to do away with the 
appearance of special treatment for Members of Congress, and to do away 
with the reality of special treatment for Members of Congress, when you 
look at the bill and see if the Attorney General under the bill/Bryant 
can only be in the discretion of the Attorney General while in the 
Gekas amendment you make it mandatory.
  The gentleman from Massachusetts [Mr. Frank] was talking about 
increasing the cost. The gentleman from Texas [Mr. Bryant] admits in 
all his dissertations that 535 Members of Congress are already in a 
list in front of the Attorney General. There is Frank, there is Bryant, 
there is Gekas, there is Solomon in the list that the Attorney General 
has before her, even under the bill/Bryant language. So the Attorney 
General is looking over this list under bill/Bryant ``may,'' and has 
535 names from which allegations could be vested against any one of 
them and then may decide to prosecute. I take that same list and say 
she must have it in front of her to use as a possible list of targets 
for the appointment of independent counsel, the same expense, the same 
time, the same energy that could be expended in a ``may'' bill on bill/
Bryant's part that they may look over the list of 535 extra targets 
that bill/Bryant continuously talks about and puts over here, that they 
must cover if indeed allegations are made against a Member of Congress.
  Mr. Speaker, I will have more to say about this later. I will want to 
talk about bill/Bryant.
  Mr. DERRICK. Mr. Speaker, I would almost believe that this is a 
foreign policy bill with all the Machiavellian diplomacy that seems to 
be going on here.
  Mr. Speaker, I yield such time as she may consume to the gentlewoman 
from Indiana [Ms. Long].
  (Ms. LONG asked and was given permission to revise and extend her 
remarks.)
  Ms. LONG. Mr. Speaker, I rise in support of this rule and the bill. 
Mr. Speaker, in 1978, Members of this body saw fit to enact an 
independent counsel statute to ensure that Federal officials are held 
accountable to the people of our country. I rise today in support of 
this rule and H.R. 811 to reauthorize the independent counsel law.
  Few people disagree that there are occasions when it is necessary to 
have a special prosecutor who is independent of the Attorney General. 
There has been a need throughout U.S. history for a mechanism to 
appoint a temporary independent prosecutor to investigate alleged 
wrongdoing by high-level Federal Government officials. During President 
Grant's administration, a special prosecutor was appointed to 
investigate the so-called whiskey ring. We had further independent 
investigations in the 1920's with the Teapot Dome scandal, another 
during the Truman administration and, of course, the independent 
investigation of the Watergate cover-up which prompted the 
authorization of the special prosecutor rule under the 1978 Ethics in 
Government Act.
  The authorization of the independent counsel law is the right thing 
to do if we are to avoid conflict of interest in maintaining the 
integrity of this Government. The Attorney General is at the same time 
the chief Federal law enforcement official and a Presidential appointee 
who is a key member of the President's Cabinet. Cases involving 
possible wrongdoing by high-level executive branch officials, 
therefore, present a fundamental conflict of interest--it is too much 
to ask for any person to investigate a superior and it is too much to 
ask the public to feel easy about the vigor and thoroughness with which 
such an investigation could be pursued.
  With this reauthorization, the independent counsel law would also be 
extended to include Members of Congress when there is a perceived 
conflict of interest. I support the inclusion of this discretionary 
authority for the Attorney General and I hope this Congress will not 
politicize the independent counsel law by making the coverage of 
Members of Congress mandatory. The Department of Justice must continue 
to have the primary role in prosecuting crimes involving official 
misconduct.
  It is time this Congress took steps to ensure the American people's 
confidence in the integrity of its Government. The independent counsel 
law is the single most important reform to come out of Watergate and it 
was unfortunate that it was allowed to lapse during the 102d Congress. 
I hope that 103d Congress has the good sense to reauthorize it. I urge 
support of the bill.
  Mr. DERRICK. Mr. Speaker, for purposes of debate only, I yield 4 
minutes to the distinguished gentleman from New Mexico [Mr. 
Richardson].
  (Mr. RICHARDSON asked and was given permission to revise and extend 
his remarks.)
  Mr. RICHARDSON. Mr. Speaker, let me just state for the record that 
the Bryant amendment or the bill and Bryant amendment, with nearly 
identical language passed the Senate with a bipartisan majority, and 
the Gekas amendment was defeated by 67 to 31 in the other body.
  Now, that may not reassure a lot of Members here, but let us state 
that for the record.
  The rule is fair. It allows 10 amendments, 4 by Democratic Members 
and 6 by Republicans. The rule provides for these two clear 
alternatives, a Democratic alternative and a Republican alternative, on 
the issue of coverage for Members of Congress.
  The rule makes in order a Republican substitute for the entire bill, 
which includes virtually every amendment offered in the Committee on 
the Judiciary. Finally, the rule also makes in order several individual 
amendments on other major issues in the bill.
  Let me state what the Bryant amendment does, which we urge all 
Members to support: Members of Congress would be explicitly covered by 
the independent counsel law for the first time.
  Second, the Bryant amendment authorizes the Attorney General to 
invoke the independent counsel procedures to investigate and prosecute 
Members of Congress whenever the Attorney General determines that, ``It 
is in the public interest.'' This again passed the other body with a 
bipartisan majority.
  Mr. Speaker, earlier in the 1-minute discussions a Washington Times 
story came up about the Whitewater issue. Let me just state what the 
managing partner of the Rose law firm, Ronald M. Clark says. He 
strongly denied the reports in the Washington Times that the firm had 
shredded Whitewater documents, ``Totally false.'' This is the managing 
partner of the firm.
  When asked whether the firm had shredded documents related to 
Whitewater, Mr. Clark stated, ``Absolutely not.'' The Washington Times 
reports ``a source'' as a ``Rose employee,'' and not an attorney with 
the firm. Mr. Clark also states that the firm's employees are under no 
gag order or anything else, so they can speak freely.
  Let me just quote one of the sources that the Washington Times has 
for the story. It is reported that a second employee who took part in 
the shredding would not talk about it, but declined to say the incident 
had not occurred. This is ``the source:'' ``I am not going to comment. 
I am not going to say anything about what happened. I would just prefer 
not to say anything about this at all.'' This is one of the sources for 
this story, which has absolutely no foundation, no credence.
  Mr. Speaker, the bill we are debating today on the independent 
counsel is a good one. It is one that guarantees coverage of Members of 
Congress. The gentleman from Texas [Mr. Bryant], a very ethical and 
dedicated Member of this body, who has a long record on this issue, has 
put forth a good bill which we should all support.

          Member Coverage and the Independent Counsel Statute


            the democratic alternative--the bryant amendment

       Under the Bryant Amendment, Members of Congress would be 
     explicitly covered by the Independent Counsel Law for the 
     first time.
       The Bryant Amendment authorizes the Attorney General to 
     invoke the Independent Counsel procedures to investigate and 
     prosecute Members of Congress whenever she determines that it 
     is ``in the public interest.''
       Nearly identical language was adopted by a bipartisan 
     majority in the Senate.


            the republican alternative--the gekas amendment

       The Gekas Amendment requires the Attorney General to invoke 
     the independent counsel procedures whenever a Member is 
     accused of wrongdoing.
       The Gekas Amendment removes the Attorney General's 
     discretion to prosecute Members of Congress--even in cases 
     where a Justice Department prosecution would be more 
     appropriate than an independent counsel.
       The Gekas Amendment imposes special treatment for Members 
     of Congress, treating them differently then every other 
     American except for a very select few officials in the 
     executive branch.
       The amendment would increase the cost of the independent 
     counsel process by requiring a tenfold increase in the number 
     of persons with mandatory coverage.
       The Gekas Amendment was defeated on the Senate floor by a 
     vote of 67-31.

  Mr. Speaker, I rise today in support of the rule and in support of 
H.R. 811, the independent counsel reauthorization.
  This is a fair rule. It makes in order 10 amendments, 6 of which are 
being offered by Republicans and 4 by Democrats. The rule provides for 
two clear alternatives on the issue of independent counsel coverage of 
Members of Congress--one Democratic and one Republican.
  The rule even makes in order a Republican substitute for the entire 
bill which includes almost every Republican amendment offered in the 
Judiciary Committee.
  We will hear all sorts of opposition to the rule based on the claim 
that the Republicans are unable to discuss issues they care about. 
Nothing could be further from the truth. As I have said and the rule 
makes clear, the major issues surrounding this legislation will be 
debated and voted upon during consideration of H.R. 811.
  It is imperative that we pass the rule and the bill. H.R. 811 
provides a 5-year reauthorization of the independent counsel and 
includes new and strong rules to prevent wasteful government spending. 
In addition, the Bryant amendment mandated for the first time that 
Members of Congress be explicitly covered by the independent counsel 
law.
  Mr. Speaker, today, when the public's trust and respect for 
government is at a record low, we must act to reauthorize the 
independent counsel and explicitly state that Congress is covered by 
the law. I, therefore, urge my colleagues to support the rule and H.R. 
811.
  Mr. GOSS. Mr. Speaker, I yield 3 minutes to the distinguished 
gentleman from Pennsylvania [Mr. Walker] our ranking member on 
Whitewater and well known for other matters.
  Mr. WALKER. I thank the gentleman for yielding.
  Mr. Speaker, I was particularly pleased to hear the gentleman from 
New Mexico fill us in on the latest incident in the whole matter of 
Whitewatergate. I mean we get so many denials on the floor these days 
that you cannot keep up with them. One has to wonder how many more 
rules we will have to debate to keep getting denials about what is 
happening in Whitewatergate. All we would like to know is where are all 
these documents? I mean if the documents are not being shredded at the 
Rose law firm, where are they and why can they not be made public? Of 
course, they cannot be made public because the President refuses to 
allow them to be made public.
  Mr. Speaker, one of the dirtiest little secrets that Washington has 
is that this House of Representatives has been in control of the 
Democrats for 40 years. For 40 years Democrats have carved out for 
themselves positions of privilege and power and then sought all kinds 
of ways to hang onto those positions to make certain that they keep 
themselves separate from things other Americans have to live by.
  There is no greater contrast that you can come up with than the 
difference between the Democrats and Republicans than this rule because 
in this case the Democrats are saying flatly, ``We don't want Congress 
covered by the same laws that we pass for others.'' Republicans, on the 
other hand, in fighting against this rule, are saying, ``We want 
Congress to live under the laws that other people have to live under.'' 
It is a great contrast here to understand that. The American people 
have said flatly, ``Congress, why don't you live under the same laws 
you pass for us and pass for others?'' In this case, what the Democrats 
are trying to do is, from their positions of privilege and power, are 
saying, ``No, we want an exception''.
  Under this particular bill, Republicans are seeking coverage for 
Congress under the independent counsel statute. The Democrats do not 
want coverage, they want cover.
  And so what they have done is put a procedure into place where the 
gentleman from Texas [Mr. Bryant] will come in with his substitute to 
the gentleman from Pennsylvania [Mr. Gekas] to make certain the 
Democrats never have to vote on the real issue of whether or not to 
cover Congress, really, under the independent counsel statute.

                              {time}  1410

  When we get to the question of the Bryant amendment, it is being 
reported, and he admits his is optional coverage. As my colleagues 
know, the question here is optional. For other people that would be 
covered under the statute it is mandatory.
  And let us understand here that what we are talking about is 
criminals. We are talking about a people who allegedly have committed 
criminal acts. ``If you're in the Congress, you may have an independent 
counsel. If you're not in the Congress, you will have an independent 
counsel.'' That is the difference. ``If you are privileged and if you 
are in a position of power in the Congress, you may be covered. If you 
are not in the Congress, you will be covered.'' There is a big 
difference here, my colleagues.
  The dirty little secret that the Democrats have controlled this body 
is no more evident than on this floor today.
  Mr. DERRICK. Mr. Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the distinguished 
gentleman from Texas [Mr. Bryant].
  Mr. BRYANT. Mr. Speaker, I would like to say that the remarks of the 
gentleman from Pennsylvania [Mr. Walker] are most unfortunate and, in 
my view, do not reflect well on him for having spoken in those terms.
  I say to my colleagues, No. 1, you are given two opportunities to 
vote on the issue of mandatory member coverage. Two opportunities. No. 
2, for the gentleman to say that this is some type of a Democratic 
conspiracy, which, by the way, the gentleman says about everything he 
speaks about on this floor, I think would raise a serious question 
about why these Republican Senators voted exactly opposite of what the 
gentleman from Pennsylvania [Mr. Walker] has advocated.
  Senator Stevens from Alaska--
  The SPEAKER pro tempore [Mr. LaRocco]. The gentleman from Texas [Mr. 
Bryant] should refrain from referring to specific votes from the 
Senate.
  Mr. BRYANT. Could the Speaker pro tempore clarify his ruling? I am 
not sure what I am prohibited from doing.
  The SPEAKER pro tempore. The gentleman may refer to the vote total, 
but not to the specific Members of the other body and how they voted.
  Mr. BRYANT. Mr. Speaker, I would just point out that the vote was 67 
to 31, and the gentleman from Pennsylvania [Mr. Walker] has succeeded 
in preventing me from calling the names of 14 distinguished Republican 
Senators who the gentleman has basically indicted in his statement 
today as co-conspirators with a bunch of other people that are trying 
to prevent the American people from getting something the gentleman 
thinks they deserve.
  I would also say to the gentleman from Pennsylvania, that you stated 
here on the floor of the House that somehow the effort is afoot by 
these 14 Republican Senators and us to keep Congress from being covered 
under laws that apply to everybody else. The independent counsel 
statute is designed to cover only 60 people in the executive branch. It 
does not apply to everybody else.
  We are treated, as Members of Congress, like everybody else except 
that the Attorney General is permitted, at her option, if she believes 
it is in the public interest, to assign an independent counsel in those 
cases. But we are treated like everybody else in regard to independent 
counsel. Sixty people are treated differently.
  I say to the gentleman that you know the distinction, but it does not 
fit into your propaganda, and I think that your premeditated efforts to 
come forward on the floor of the House here and make these statements 
today are part of just that, partisan propaganda, Mr. Walker.
  I say that we should pass a bill for once without all of this 
rhetoric and deal with the issues on the merits.
  Mr. GOSS. Mr. Speaker, may I make an inquiry of how much time remains 
on each side and get an idea of how many speakers there will be?
  The SPEAKER pro tempore. The gentleman from Florida [Mr. Goss] has 
6\1/2\ minutes remaining. The gentleman from South Carolina [Mr. 
Derrick] has 4\1/2\ minutes remaining.
  Mr. GOSS. Mr. Speaker, I yield such time as he may consume to the 
distinguished whip of the minority party, the gentleman from Georgia 
[Mr. Gingrich].
  Mr. GINGRICH. Mr. Speaker, let me pick up the dialog that was just 
going on because I think people in this country deserve to be told the 
truth, and the truth is the Democratic leadership uses the Committee on 
Rules, in its 40th years of one party control of this House, in order 
to rig the game for itself.
  Now the truth is, if I understand it, and the gentleman from South 
Caroline [Mr. Derrick] can certainly interrupt me if I have this wrong, 
but the truth is the way this will be rigged is that the gentleman from 
Pennsylvania [Mr. Gekas] will be allowed to offer a direct amendment 
which will, in fact, cover the Congress under independent counsel. We 
will not at that point have a vote on Mr. Gekas. We will not have a 
chance for every person in the country to see every Member vote yes or 
no on covering the Congress. At that point the Democratic leadership, 
through the Committee on Rules, has rigged the game so that the 
gentleman from Texas [Mr. Bryant] will offer an amendment which will be 
a substitute for Mr. Gekas. Mr. Bryant's amendment, and the current and 
the newly offered bill actually weakens current law. Current law says 
that the Attorney General, if they are concerned about, quote, 
personal, political or financial conflict of interests with the accused 
Member, have an obligation to appoint counsel. that is now being 
replaced by the much broader term in the public interest.
  So, in fact we will never get inside the amending process in the 
committee. We will never get a freestanding vote on the amendment to be 
offered by the gentleman from Pennsylvania [Mr. Gekas].
  I ask my friend, the gentleman from South Carolina [Mr. Derrick], 
``Is that not correct?''
  Mr. DERRICK. Mr. Speaker, will the gentleman yield?
  Mr. GINGRICH. I yield to the gentleman from South Carolina.
  Mr. DERRICK. I say to the gentleman, You're going to get an 
opportunity to vote on the Hyde substitute, and you can vote on 
everything that you and the Republicans want to put in there--
  Mr. GINGRICH. Mr. Speaker, I reclaim my time because what the 
gentleman just said, of course, was, in fact, ``No.'' There will never 
in the Committee of the Whole during the amending process be a vote on 
Gekas. That is what the gentleman said.
  I say to the gentleman, You don't want to tell the country that when 
we offer the motion to recommit, which we will offer if Bryant passes, 
and the motion to recommit is the Gekas amendment, that every Democrat 
walking on this floor will be told, Oh, don't vote for the motion to 
recommit. That's a Republican procedural vote. And you weren't willing 
to make Gekas freestanding as a clean vote on the House floor in the 
Committee of the Whole because you know that faced in the Committee of 
the Whole as an amendment with Gekas that your Democratic Members will 
be afraid to go back home and say, Oh, I voted against covering 
Congress because every organization in the country in small business, 
every organization in the country in taxpayer groups, every 
conservative and citizen organization, is saying they are sick of 
Congress passing laws that don't apply to Congress, and Gekas is the 
only amendment that truly applies, despite the Independent Counsel Act 
to the Congress.
  Let us go a step further. The gentleman from Illinois [Mr. Hyde], one 
of the most distinguished members of the Committee on the Judiciary in 
either party, a man who has earned the right, earned the right by years 
of service, to come to this floor with amendments, went to the 
Committee on Rules with eight amendments--eight. But the Democrat 
leadership did not want to face Mr. Hyde's eight amendments because 
they might pass. So, they said, ``Oh, let's rack them up into one 
package, and then let's find one or another excuse to not vote for the 
Hyde substitute.''
  I say to my colleagues:

       Well, look later on today since the gentleman from South 
     Carolina has pointed out to his Democratic colleagues. You 
     get a chance on the Hyde substitute to vote to cover 
     Congress. So, if you want to vote to cover Congress, even 
     under this rule, vote for the Hyde substitute, not quiet as 
     clear as Gekas, has six other things attached to it because 
     of the way the Democratic leadership for 40 years has run 
     this place. Doesn't quite let the American people see it as 
     clear as they could, but it is there.

  Mr. Speaker, I just think it is a shame and a travesty that the 
Democrat leadership is so afraid of its own Members and so afraid of 
the American people that on an issue of honest Government it cannot 
come in and offer a rule that makes in order the legitimate amendments 
of people like the gentleman from New York [Mr. Fish], the ranking 
member; the gentleman from Pennsylvania [Mr. Gekas] who deserves a 
clean vote, and the gentleman from Illinois [Mr. Hyde] who has served 
so ably in that. These are all committee members. There are members who 
have earned the right by their service on the Committee on the 
Judiciary to offer on the floor a clean debatable amendment with a 
clear up or down vote. But in that setting the Democrat leadership, 
which absolutely owns the Committee on Rules by 9 to 4, said:

       Oh, no. Even on a matter of cleaning up government, even on 
     a matter of reform, even on independent counsel, we simply 
     aren't in a position where we can allow the American people 
     to see the votes.

  Mr. WALKER. Mr. Speaker, will the gentleman yield?
  Mr. GINGRICH. I yield to the gentleman from Pennsylvania.
  Mr. WALKER. Mr. Speaker, I want to reflect on the fact that the one 
amendment that they did make in order changes the date in the bill from 
1993 to 1994. They made that amendment in order. They found ways to do 
that. But they could not allow legitimate amendments speaking to the 
real substance of the bill.
  Mr. FISH. Mr. Speaker, will the gentleman yield?
  Mr. GINGRICH. I yield to the gentleman from New York.

                              {time}  1420

  Mr. FISH. Mr. Speaker, I just came on the floor, and I understand 
that in previous discussion concerning the rule a statement was made 
about a vote I cast a number of years ago on similar coverage. That was 
in 1987, I believe, about congressional coverage. My recollection is 
that at that time the amendment was offered by Mr. Shaw and I voted in 
favor of it. It is also a matter of record that I voted for this 
provision, the Gekas amendment, in the Judiciary Committee bringing 
this bill to the full House.
  Mr. GINGRICH. Mr. Speaker, I appreciate the distinguished gentleman 
from New York, who is our ranking member and our leader on the 
Judiciary Committee, making it clear, despite the earlier claim by a 
Democrat who is seeking to confuse the situation, that in fact he had 
voted for it.
  Mr. Speaker, may I inquire as to how much time I have remaining?
  The SPEAKER pro tempore (Mr. LaRocco). The gentleman from Georgia 
[Mr. Gingrich] has approximately 30 seconds remaining.
  Mr. GINGRICH. Mr. Speaker, with only 30 seconds left, let me just say 
in closing that I think the country needs to watch all year every rule, 
watch the way the game is rigged, and watch the way leadership closes 
off debate and the way the Democrat leadership closes off debate, and I 
would appeal to my Democrat colleagues, if you want to show your 
independence of the machine, if you want to show you are not afraid to 
face the Gekas amendment, if you want to show you are willing to vote 
directly in the Committee of the Whole for an amendment to have 
Congress covered by the bill, vote ``no,'' send it back up to the Rules 
Committee, and let us bring an honest open rule back that gives us a 
vote on Gekas and does not masquerade by pretending to give what it 
takes away with another hand.
  The SPEAKER pro tempore. All time on the minority side has expired.
  Mr. DERRICK. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself 30 seconds.
  Let me say, Mr. Speaker, that the prior gentleman speaketh too much. 
He knows very well that if you want to vote on Gekas, you vote ``no'' 
on Bryant, and if Bryant does not pass, you get a vote on Gekas.
  Mr. Speaker, you get a vote on Gekas on a motion to recommit. You can 
also put Gekas in the Hyde amendment and get an opportunity to vote on 
it there. That is three times you have the possibility of getting a 
vote on Gekas. You can turn it any way you want to. There were 10 
amendments made in order, 4 of them were Democratic initiatives, 3 
Republican initiatives, so this is a very fair rule. It gives an 
opportunity for the House to vote on the issues that are before the 
House.
  Mr. Speaker, I yield 1 minute to the gentleman from New Jersey [Mr. 
Hughes].
  (Mr. HUGHES asked and was given permission to revise and extend his 
remarks.)
  Mr. HUGHES. Mr. Speaker, listening to the minority whip reminds me of 
my younger days when I visited the carnival and saw the shell game. 
That is what this is all about. Many of the Republicans as a matter of 
policy have been opposed to the independent counsel statute for years. 
They find many reasons basically to gut it, to derail it, and to 
attempt to weaken it, and this business about not covering Congress is 
just nonsense.
  First of all, the Department of Justice is in the executive branch of 
the Government, as my colleagues know. There is no conflict involving 
the prosecution of Members of Congress who step out of line. They have 
been doing it all down through the history of the executive branch of 
the government. The conflict comes in because we ask the Attorney 
General to investigate and prosecute Members within the executive 
government, numbering some 60. The minority whip misquoted the law.
  This does not weaken the law. It is permissive now. Why should we 
require the Attorney General in every instance to prosecute Members of 
Congress, Democrats or Republicans, unless there is a need to do that? 
The Attorney General has that authority now and will have that 
authority in this legislation.
  Mr. DERRICK. Mr. Speaker, I yield such time as he may consume to the 
distinguished chairman of the Committee on the Judiciary, the gentleman 
from Texas [Mr. Brooks].
  (Mr. BROOKS asked and was given permission to revise and extend his 
remarks.)
  Mr. BROOKS. Mr. Speaker, I rise in strong support of the proposed 
rule to govern floor consideration of H.R. 811, and I compliment the 
fine work of Chairman Moakley and the members of his committee in 
crafting this rule. I must say that the rule is so fair and 
accommodating to the minority that it gives this body the high pleasure 
of voting on some amendments twice--first as stand-alones and then all 
wrapped up in a sweet omnibus substitute package designed to eviscerate 
every single fiber of the independent counsel statute.
  I want to draw special attention to one of the amendments to be 
considered--that is the application of the independent counsel statute 
to Members of Congress. Despite the fact that it truly is a red 
herring, some Republicans have made this issue the heart of their 
debate on the entire legislation. The irony is that the act, and H.R. 
811, have provided for Member coverage since 1982, but that large fact 
seems to be an overlooked tiny detail to those making the ruckus. But, 
let's resolve today that we won't overlook small details in this 
debate.
  It's high time for this body to cut through this charade and to take 
the issue head-on. It's a scare tactic, and we must resist it to 
finally put an end to the increasing practice of some of lob smoke 
bombs in the hope the Members don't take the time to really consider 
the issue. The proposed rule allows us to do so by making in order both 
the Gekas and the Bryant amendments.
  The Rules Committee graciously has made in order three on my 
amendments that are of a technical nature. I don't believe any 
controversy is raised by this en bloc amendment; but, I would pause a 
moment on one part. There is absolutely no disagreement between the 
Republican and Democratic sides that the independent counsel should 
follow the Department of Justice guidelines and procedures with regard 
to the handling of classified material. That is, in fact, the existing 
law. To make that crystal clear, one of my amendments makes that 
requirement explicit in the independent counsel statute.
  While the Rules Committee in its considerable wisdom did not permit 
all proffered amendments--including, I might add, one of my own--I 
believe the rule is a fair and workable one and deserves our strong 
support. I urge an ``aye'' vote, and let us go on with the important 
business at hand.
  The SPEAKER pro tempore. All time has expired.
  Mr. DERRICK. Mr. Speaker, I move the previous question on the 
resolution.
  The SPEAKER pro tempore. The question is on ordering the previous 
question.
  The question was taken; and the Speaker pro tempore announced that 
the ayes appeared to have it.
  Mr. GOSS. 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 249, 
nays 174, not voting 10 as follows:

                             [Roll No. 16]

                               YEAS--249

     Abercrombie
     Ackerman
     Andrews (ME)
     Andrews (NJ)
     Andrews (TX)
     Applegate
     Bacchus (FL)
     Baesler
     Barca
     Barcia
     Barlow
     Barrett (WI)
     Becerra
     Beilenson
     Berman
     Bevill
     Bilbray
     Bishop
     Blackwell
     Bonior
     Borski
     Boucher
     Brewster
     Brooks
     Browder
     Brown (CA)
     Brown (FL)
     Brown (OH)
     Bryant
     Byrne
     Cantwell
     Cardin
     Carr
     Chapman
     Clay
     Clayton
     Clement
     Clyburn
     Coleman
     Collins (IL)
     Collins (MI)
     Condit
     Conyers
     Cooper
     Coppersmith
     Costello
     Coyne
     Cramer
     Danner
     Darden
     Deal
     DeFazio
     DeLauro
     Dellums
     Derrick
     Deutsch
     Dicks
     Dingell
     Dixon
     Dooley
     Durbin
     Edwards (CA)
     Edwards (TX)
     Engel
     English
     Eshoo
     Evans
     Farr
     Fazio
     Fields (LA)
     Filner
     Fingerhut
     Flake
     Foglietta
     Ford (MI)
     Frank (MA)
     Frost
     Furse
     Gejdenson
     Gephardt
     Geren
     Gibbons
     Glickman
     Gonzalez
     Gordon
     Green
     Gutierrez
     Hall (OH)
     Hall (TX)
     Hamburg
     Hamilton
     Harman
     Hayes
     Hefner
     Hilliard
     Hinchey
     Hoagland
     Hochbrueckner
     Holden
     Hoyer
     Hughes
     Hutto
     Inslee
     Jefferson
     Johnson (GA)
     Johnson (SD)
     Johnson, E. B.
     Johnston
     Kanjorski
     Kaptur
     Kennedy
     Kennelly
     Kildee
     Kleczka
     Klein
     Klink
     Kopetski
     Kreidler
     LaFalce
     Lambert
     Lancaster
     Lantos
     LaRocco
     Lehman
     Levin
     Lewis (GA)
     Lipinski
     Lloyd
     Long
     Lowey
     Maloney
     Mann
     Manton
     Margolies-Mezvinsky
     Markey
     Martinez
     Matsui
     Mazzoli
     McCloskey
     McCurdy
     McDermott
     McHale
     McKinney
     McNulty
     Meehan
     Meek
     Menendez
     Mfume
     Miller (CA)
     Mineta
     Minge
     Mink
     Moakley
     Mollohan
     Montgomery
     Moran
     Murphy
     Murtha
     Nadler
     Natcher
     Neal (MA)
     Oberstar
     Obey
     Olver
     Ortiz
     Orton
     Owens
     Pallone
     Parker
     Pastor
     Payne (NJ)
     Payne (VA)
     Pelosi
     Penny
     Peterson (FL)
     Peterson (MN)
     Pickett
     Pickle
     Pomeroy
     Poshard
     Price (NC)
     Rahall
     Reed
     Reynolds
     Richardson
     Roemer
     Rose
     Rostenkowski
     Rowland
     Roybal-Allard
     Rush
     Sabo
     Sanders
     Sangmeister
     Sarpalius
     Sawyer
     Schenk
     Schroeder
     Schumer
     Scott
     Serrano
     Sharp
     Shepherd
     Sisisky
     Skaggs
     Skelton
     Slattery
     Slaughter
     Smith (IA)
     Spratt
     Stark
     Stenholm
     Stokes
     Strickland
     Studds
     Stupak
     Swett
     Swift
     Synar
     Tanner
     Tauzin
     Taylor (MS)
     Tejeda
     Thompson
     Thornton
     Thurman
     Torres
     Torricelli
     Towns
     Traficant
     Tucker
     Unsoeld
     Valentine
     Velazquez
     Vento
     Visclosky
     Volkmer
     Waters
     Watt
     Waxman
     Wheat
     Whitten
     Williams
     Wilson
     Wise
     Woolsey
     Wyden
     Wynn
     Yates

                               NAYS--174

     Allard
     Archer
     Armey
     Bachus (AL)
     Baker (CA)
     Baker (LA)
     Ballenger
     Barrett (NE)
     Bartlett
     Barton
     Bateman
     Bentley
     Bereuter
     Bliley
     Blute
     Boehlert
     Boehner
     Bonilla
     Bunning
     Burton
     Buyer
     Callahan
     Calvert
     Camp
     Canady
     Castle
     Clinger
     Coble
     Collins (GA)
     Combest
     Cox
     Crane
     Crapo
     Cunningham
     DeLay
     Diaz-Balart
     Dickey
     Doolittle
     Dornan
     Dreier
     Duncan
     Dunn
     Ehlers
     Emerson
     Everett
     Ewing
     Fawell
     Fields (TX)
     Fish
     Fowler
     Franks (CT)
     Franks (NJ)
     Gallegly
     Gallo
     Gekas
     Gilchrest
     Gillmor
     Gilman
     Gingrich
     Goodlatte
     Goodling
     Goss
     Grams
     Grandy
     Greenwood
     Gunderson
     Hancock
     Hansen
     Hastert
     Hefley
     Herger
     Hobson
     Hoekstra
     Hoke
     Horn
     Houghton
     Hunter
     Hutchinson
     Hyde
     Inglis
     Inhofe
     Istook
     Jacobs
     Johnson (CT)
     Johnson, Sam
     Kasich
     Kim
     King
     Kingston
     Klug
     Knollenberg
     Kolbe
     Kyl
     Lazio
     Leach
     Levy
     Lewis (CA)
     Lewis (FL)
     Lightfoot
     Linder
     Livingston
     Machtley
     Manzullo
     McCandless
     McCollum
     McCrery
     McDade
     McHugh
     McInnis
     McKeon
     McMillan
     Meyers
     Mica
     Michel
     Miller (FL)
     Molinari
     Moorhead
     Morella
     Myers
     Nussle
     Oxley
     Packard
     Paxon
     Petri
     Pombo
     Porter
     Portman
     Pryce (OH)
     Quillen
     Quinn
     Ramstad
     Ravenel
     Regula
     Ridge
     Roberts
     Rogers
     Rohrabacher
     Ros-Lehtinen
     Roth
     Royce
     Santorum
     Saxton
     Schaefer
     Schiff
     Sensenbrenner
     Shaw
     Shays
     Shuster
     Skeen
     Smith (MI)
     Smith (NJ)
     Smith (OR)
     Smith (TX)
     Snowe
     Solomon
     Spence
     Stearns
     Stump
     Sundquist
     Talent
     Taylor (NC)
     Thomas (CA)
     Thomas (WY)
     Torkildsen
     Upton
     Vucanovich
     Walker
     Walsh
     Weldon
     Wolf
     Young (AK)
     Young (FL)
     Zeliff
     Zimmer

                             NOT VOTING--10

     Bilirakis
     de la Garza
     Ford (TN)
     Hastings
     Huffington
     Laughlin
     Neal (NC)
     Rangel
     Roukema
     Washington

                              {time}  1448

  The Clerk announced the following pairs:
  On this vote:

       Mr. Rangel for, with Mr. Bilirakis against.
       Mr. Washington for, with Mrs. Roukema against.

  Ms. VELAZQUEZ changed her vote from ``nay'' to ``yea.''
  So the previous question was ordered.
  The result of the vote was announced as above recorded.
  The SPEAKER pro tempore (Mr. LaRocco). The question is on the 
resolution.
  The question was taken; and the Speaker pro tempore announced that 
the noes appeared to have it.


                             recorded vote

  Mr. DERRICK. Mr. Speaker, I demand a recorded vote.
  A recorded vote was ordered.
  The vote was taken by electronic device, and there were--ayes 242, 
noes 174, not voting 17, as follows:

                             [Roll No. 17]

                               AYES--242

     Abercrombie
     Ackerman
     Andrews (ME)
     Andrews (NJ)
     Andrews (TX)
     Applegate
     Bacchus (FL)
     Baesler
     Barca
     Barcia
     Barlow
     Barrett (WI)
     Beilenson
     Berman
     Bevill
     Bilbray
     Bishop
     Blackwell
     Bonior
     Borski
     Boucher
     Brewster
     Brooks
     Browder
     Brown (CA)
     Brown (FL)
     Brown (OH)
     Bryant
     Byrne
     Cantwell
     Cardin
     Carr
     Chapman
     Clay
     Clayton
     Clement
     Clyburn
     Coleman
     Collins (IL)
     Collins (MI)
     Condit
     Conyers
     Coppersmith
     Costello
     Coyne
     Cramer
     Danner
     Darden
     Deal
     DeFazio
     DeLauro
     Dellums
     Derrick
     Deutsch
     Dicks
     Dingell
     Dixon
     Dooley
     Edwards (CA)
     Edwards (TX)
     Engel
     English
     Eshoo
     Evans
     Farr
     Fazio
     Fields (LA)
     Filner
     Fingerhut
     Flake
     Foglietta
     Frank (MA)
     Frost
     Furse
     Gejdenson
     Gephardt
     Geren
     Gibbons
     Glickman
     Gonzalez
     Gordon
     Green
     Gutierrez
     Hall (OH)
     Hall (TX)
     Hamburg
     Hamilton
     Harman
     Hayes
     Hefner
     Hilliard
     Hinchey
     Hoagland
     Hochbrueckner
     Holden
     Hoyer
     Hughes
     Hutto
     Inslee
     Jefferson
     Johnson (GA)
     Johnson (SD)
     Johnson, E. B.
     Johnston
     Kanjorski
     Kaptur
     Kennedy
     Kennelly
     Kildee
     Kleczka
     Klein
     Klink
     Kopetski
     Kreidler
     LaFalce
     Lambert
     Lancaster
     Lantos
     LaRocco
     Lehman
     Levin
     Lewis (GA)
     Lipinski
     Lloyd
     Long
     Lowey
     Maloney
     Mann
     Manton
     Margolies-Mezvinsky
     Markey
     Martinez
     Matsui
     Mazzoli
     McCloskey
     McCurdy
     McDermott
     McHale
     McKinney
     McNulty
     Meehan
     Meek
     Menendez
     Mfume
     Miller (CA)
     Mineta
     Minge
     Mink
     Moakley
     Mollohan
     Montgomery
     Moran
     Murphy
     Nadler
     Natcher
     Neal (MA)
     Oberstar
     Obey
     Olver
     Ortiz
     Orton
     Owens
     Pallone
     Parker
     Pastor
     Payne (NJ)
     Payne (VA)
     Pelosi
     Penny
     Peterson (FL)
     Peterson (MN)
     Pickett
     Pickle
     Pomeroy
     Poshard
     Price (NC)
     Rahall
     Reed
     Reynolds
     Richardson
     Roemer
     Rose
     Rostenkowski
     Rowland
     Roybal-Allard
     Rush
     Sabo
     Sanders
     Sangmeister
     Sarpalius
     Sawyer
     Schenk
     Schroeder
     Schumer
     Scott
     Serrano
     Sharp
     Shepherd
     Sisisky
     Skaggs
     Skelton
     Slattery
     Slaughter
     Smith (IA)
     Spratt
     Stark
     Stenholm
     Stokes
     Strickland
     Studds
     Stupak
     Swett
     Swift
     Synar
     Tanner
     Tauzin
     Taylor (MS)
     Tejeda
     Thompson
     Thornton
     Thurman
     Torres
     Torricelli
     Towns
     Traficant
     Tucker
     Unsoeld
     Valentine
     Vento
     Visclosky
     Volkmer
     Waters
     Watt
     Waxman
     Wheat
     Whitten
     Williams
     Wise
     Woolsey
     Wyden
     Wynn
     Yates

                               NOES--174

     Allard
     Archer
     Armey
     Bachus (AL)
     Baker (CA)
     Baker (LA)
     Ballenger
     Barrett (NE)
     Bartlett
     Barton
     Bateman
     Bentley
     Bereuter
     Bliley
     Blute
     Boehlert
     Boehner
     Bonilla
     Bunning
     Burton
     Buyer
     Callahan
     Calvert
     Camp
     Canady
     Castle
     Clinger
     Coble
     Collins (GA)
     Combest
     Cooper
     Cox
     Crane
     Crapo
     Cunningham
     DeLay
     Diaz-Balart
     Dickey
     Doolittle
     Dornan
     Dreier
     Duncan
     Dunn
     Ehlers
     Emerson
     Everett
     Ewing
     Fawell
     Fields (TX)
     Fish
     Fowler
     Franks (CT)
     Franks (NJ)
     Gallegly
     Gallo
     Gekas
     Gilchrest
     Gillmor
     Gilman
     Gingrich
     Goodlatte
     Goodling
     Goss
     Grams
     Grandy
     Greenwood
     Gunderson
     Hancock
     Hansen
     Hefley
     Herger
     Hobson
     Hoekstra
     Hoke
     Horn
     Houghton
     Hunter
     Hutchinson
     Inglis
     Inhofe
     Istook
     Jacobs
     Johnson (CT)
     Johnson, Sam
     Kasich
     Kim
     King
     Kingston
     Klug
     Knollenberg
     Kolbe
     Kyl
     Lazio
     Leach
     Levy
     Lewis (CA)
     Lewis (FL)
     Lightfoot
     Linder
     Livingston
     Machtley
     Manzullo
     McCandless
     McCollum
     McCrery
     McDade
     McHugh
     McInnis
     McKeon
     McMillan
     Meyers
     Mica
     Michel
     Miller (FL)
     Molinari
     Moorhead
     Morella
     Myers
     Nussle
     Oxley
     Packard
     Paxon
     Petri
     Pombo
     Porter
     Portman
     Pryce (OH)
     Quillen
     Quinn
     Ramstad
     Ravenel
     Regula
     Ridge
     Roberts
     Rogers
     Rohrabacher
     Ros-Lehtinen
     Roth
     Royce
     Santorum
     Saxton
     Schaefer
     Schiff
     Sensenbrenner
     Shaw
     Shays
     Shuster
     Skeen
     Smith (MI)
     Smith (NJ)
     Smith (OR)
     Smith (TX)
     Snowe
     Solomon
     Spence
     Stearns
     Stump
     Sundquist
     Talent
     Taylor (NC)
     Thomas (CA)
     Thomas (WY)
     Torkildsen
     Upton
     Vucanovich
     Walker
     Walsh
     Weldon
     Wilson
     Wolf
     Young (AK)
     Young (FL)
     Zeliff
     Zimmer

                             NOT VOTING--17

     Becerra
     Bilirakis
     de la Garza
     Durbin
     Ford (MI)
     Ford (TN)
     Hastert
     Hastings
     Huffington
     Hyde
     Laughlin
     Murtha
     Neal (NC)
     Rangel
     Roukema
     Velazquez
     Washington

                              {time}  1506

  The Clerk announced the following pairs:
  On this vote:

       Mr. Rangel for, with Mr. Bilirakis against.
       Mr. Washington for, with Mrs. Roukema against.

  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.

                          ____________________