[Congressional Record Volume 140, Number 116 (Wednesday, August 17, 1994)]
[House]
[Page H]
From the Congressional Record Online through the Government Printing Office [www.gpo.gov]


[Congressional Record: August 17, 1994]
From the Congressional Record Online via GPO Access [wais.access.gpo.gov]

 
                          PERSONAL EXPLANATION

  Mr. THOMAS of Wyoming. Mr. Chairman, earlier today I was en route to 
Washington from Wyoming, where we held our primary elections yesterday, 
and missed several rollcall votes. Had I been present, I would have 
voted ``aye'' on rollcall No. 400, the Johnson amendment, and I would 
have voted ``aye'' on rollcall No. 401, the Castle amendment.
  The CHAIRMAN pro tempore (Mrs. Lowey). It is now in order to consider 
amendment No. 3 reprinted in House Report 103-690.


     amendment in the nature of a substitute offered by mr. kasich

  Mr. KASICH. Madam Chairman, pursuant to the rule, I offer an 
amendment in the nature of a substitute.
  The CHAIRMAN pro tempore. The Clerk will designate the amendment in 
the nature of a substitute.
  The text of the amendment in the nature of a substitute is as 
follows:

       Amendment in the nature of a substitute offered by Mr. 
     Kasich: Strike all after the enacting clause and insert the 
     following:

     SECTION 1. SHORT TITLE.

       This Act may be cited as the ``Emergency Spending Control 
     Act of 1994''.

     SEC. 2. TREATMENT OF EMERGENCY SPENDING.

       (a) Emergency Appropriations.--Section 251(b)(2)(D)(i) of 
     the Balanced Budget and Emergency Deficit Control Act of 1985 
     is amended by adding at the end the following new sentence: 
     ``However, OMB shall not adjust any discretionary spending 
     limit under this clause for any statute that designates 
     appropriations as emergency requirements if that statute 
     contains an appropriation for any other matter, event, or 
     occurrence, but that statute may contain rescissions of 
     budget authority.''.
       (b) Emergency Legislation.--Section 252(e) of the Balanced 
     Budget and Emergency Deficit Control Act of 1985 is amended 
     by adding at the end the following new sentence: ``However, 
     OMB shall not designate any such amounts of new budget 
     authority, outlays, or receipts as emergency requirements in 
     the report required under subsection (d) if that statute 
     contains any other provisions that are not so designated, but 
     that statute may contain provisions that reduce direct 
     spending.''.
       (c) New Point of Order.--Title IV of the Congressional 
     Budget Act of 1974 is amended by adding at the end the 
     following new section:


                 ``point of order regarding emergencies

       ``Sec. 408. It shall not be in order in the House of 
     Representatives or the Senate to consider any bill or joint 
     resolution, or amendment thereto or conference report 
     thereon, containing an emergency designation for purposes of 
     section 251(b)(2)(D) or 252(e) of the Balanced Budget and 
     Emergency Deficit Control Act of 1985 if it also provides an 
     appropriation or direct spending for any other item or 
     contains any other matter, but that bill or joint resolution, 
     amendment, or conference report may contain rescissions of 
     budget authority or reductions of direct spending, or that 
     amendment may reduce amounts for that emergency.''.
       (d) Conforming Amendment.--The table of contents set forth 
     in section 1(b) of the Congressional Budget and Impoundment 
     Control Act of 1974 is amended by inserting after the item 
     relating to section 313 the following new item:

``Sec. 408. Point of order regarding emergencies.''.

  The CHAIRMAN pro tempore. Pursuant to the rule, the gentleman from 
Ohio [Mr. Kasich] will be recognized for 15 minutes, and a Member 
opposed to the amendment will be recognized for 15 minutes.
  Does the gentleman from Wisconsin [Mr. Obey] rise in opposition?
  Mr. OBEY. Yes, Madam Chairman, I do.
  The CHAIRMAN pro tempore. The gentleman from Wisconsin [Mr. Obey] 
will be recognized for 15 minutes.
  The Chair recognizes the gentleman from Ohio [Mr. Kasich].
  Mr. KASICH. Madam Chairman, I yield 3 minutes to the distinguished 
gentleman from Texas [Mr. Stenholm], a coauthor of the amendment.
  (Mr. STENHOLM asked and was given permission to revise and extend his 
remarks.)
  Mr. STENHOLM. Madam Chairman, the Kasich-Stenholm-Penny substitute 
before us now would significantly clean up emergency appropriations 
bills by prohibiting extraneous items from being included in emergency 
appropriations bills and conference reports.
  This amendment is not as far reaching as the previous two substitutes 
that have been considered today. While I am disappointed that the 
proposals by the gentleman from Texas [Mr. Sam Johnson] and the 
gentleman from Delaware [Mr. Castle] to require that we pay for 
emergency spending through the regular budget process did not receive 
majority support today, I hope that the support that they received will 
underscore to the members of the Durbin-Emerson task force on 
emergencies the desire within this body to establish a process for 
funding emergency relief within normal budget rules.
  Under the Kasich-Penny-Stenholm amendment, a point of order would be 
established against the consideration of any emergency appropriations 
bill or conference report that included extraneous items. As a backup 
enforcement, our amendment would prevent the Office of Management and 
Budget from adjusting the caps to reflect the spending in an emergency 
appropriations bill if the bill included extraneous items. This backup 
enforcement provision could not be waived.
  By prohibiting extraneous items from being included in emergency 
spending conference reports, this amendment will prevent the other body 
from embarrassing us by slipping pork barrel spending into emergency 
appropriations bills. Anyone who is familiar with the appropriations 
understands where most of the embarrassing items have been slipped into 
emergency appropriations bills. The funds for the FBI fingerprint 
facility in West Virginia, $10 million for a new Amtrak station in New 
york, $1 million for employee-management at the Office of the Senate 
Legal Council--all of these questionable items were added to the 
California earthquake relief bill in the Senate. The Spratt substitute 
does not address the issue of extraneous items added to emergency bills 
in the other body at all. Since the only opportunity the House had to 
vote on these items was as part of a conference report, the provisions 
of the Spratt substitute would have had no effect on these and other 
extraneous spending items.

  There are some who argue that we should not be concerned about the 
extraneous items included in emergency appropriations bills because 
they have been offset by spending cuts. Some of us, however, would have 
preferred that the $14 billion in offsets that have been included in 
emergency appropriations bills since 1990 be used to offset the $30 
billion in emergency spending that we have added to the national debt 
over that period instead of being spent on extraneous items. In 
addition, the fact that these items are offset does not change the 
fundamental fact that we do not have the time to review the merits of 
unrelated items while emergency spending bills are rapidly making their 
way through Congress.
  Some of the opponents of this amendment have criticized us for 
preventing Congress from including emergency funding in regular 
appropriations bills, as we did when included emergency spending for 
Rwandan aid in the foreign operations appropriations bill. Our 
amendment would not have prevented Congress from providing emergency 
assistance to Rwanda if that was the will of the majority. We simply 
would have required that the decision about whether or not Rwandan aid 
should have been declared emergency spending be subject to greater 
scrutiny by considering it on its own merits instead of including it in 
a larger general appropriations bills. In fact, that is what this 
amendment is about--providing greater scrutiny of emergency spending.
  Madam Chairman, I urge Members to take another step in improving the 
image of Congress by voting for the real reforms of the emergency 
spending process in the Kasich-Penny-Stenholm substitute and voting 
against the Spratt substitute.

                              {time}  1430

  Mr. OBEY. Madam Chairman, I yield myself 5 minutes.
  Madam Chairman, I would like to ask the sponsor of this amendment a 
question, if I could get the attention of the gentleman from Ohio [Mr. 
Kasich] and the gentleman from Texas [Mr. Stenholm].
  I would simply like to ask this question: Since I have become 
chairman of the Committee on Appropriations, can you name one single 
extraneous item that has been added to an emergency bill?
  Mr. KASICH. Madam Chairman, will the gentleman yield?
  Mr. OBEY. I yield to the gentleman from Ohio.
  Mr. KASICH. Madam Chairman, I think the answer to that is that most 
of the extraneous items that have been added in the Senate.
  Mr. OBEY. Madam Chairman, reclaiming my time, has any item been added 
by the Senate or House to an emergency bill since I have been chairman? 
Any item that was not requested by the administration?
  Mr. KASICH. The answer is yes.
  Mr. OBEY. I suggest to the gentleman the answer is no. There is not a 
single amendment that was added to an emergency bill by either body 
that was not requested by the administration.
  I would ask a second question: Was any harm done to the----
  Mr. KASICH. If the gentleman is asking me a question, is the 
gentleman saying that because the President made a request and we added 
it in there, that somehow that does not count?
  Mr. OBEY. I am simply asking, because the gentleman has focused his 
firepower on the past tendency of the other body to add items, what I 
am simply asking is can you name an item which was added as a matter of 
pork by a Senator rather than being an item which was requested by the 
administration, such as the flood relief for Alabama, the flood relief 
for Georgia, the flood relief for Florida?
  Mr. KASICH. Let me say to the gentleman, I do not remember exactly 
the date when the gentleman took over the chairmanship, but I am 
prepared to demonstrate a number of items added to the Los Angeles 
earthquake bill.
  Mr. OBEY. As the gentleman well knows, I was not chairman of the 
committee when the Los Angeles earthquake occurred.
  I will reclaim my time, because I am trying to get a straight answer, 
and I am not getting a hard front answer. So I will move on.
  Let me simply make two points: Since I have become chairman of this 
committee, to the best of my knowledge there has not been a single 
extraneous item added by either the House or the Senate to an emergency 
vehicle that was not requested by the administration.
  I would make a second point. I would like to know what harm has been 
done to the Republic because our committee chose to respond to the 
Rwandan emergency in the fastest possible way, by putting it into the 
regular foreign aid appropriation bill, rather than taking the time on 
going through the House and the Senate with a separate bill, to which I 
would point out any number of items could have been added by the 
Senate?
  I would ask what harm was done when in the middle of winter, when 
people were freezing, our committee decided last year to add the 
emergency appropriations for the low-income heating assistance program 
to the regular Labor-HEW appropriations bill, rather than doing a 
separate appropriation?
  I would suggest none.
  I would also ask what harm was done to the Republic when we were told 
that SBA was running out of funds and so to try to avoid a shutdown of 
those programs in States like California, Georgia, and Florida, we 
simply chose in the regular State-Justice appropriations bill to add 
that emergency item to the regular bill?
  Again, I would submit no harm whatsoever.
  I would make this point: The gentleman from Ohio [Mr. Kasich] and the 
gentleman from Texas [Mr. Stenholm] would like to see these baubles 
which are usually added to emergency bills eliminated. So would I. As 
chairman of the Committee on Appropriations, no one is more enraged and 
no one is more embarrassed when a Member of the other body decides to 
try to use one of our vehicles to add a twinkie for his own district. I 
do not appreciate that, and I am going to do my darnedest to keep them 
off.
  But I would suggest that there is an added complication provided by 
this amendment which we ought not incur. I think it is perfectly 
legitimate for the sponsors of this amendment to say, ``Look, if we are 
going to have an emergency, fine, let us deal with the emergency. Let 
us not use that as an excuse to add candy for somebody else.''
  But I would suggest that there is nothing wrong with, if we have the 
opportunity, having one of these emergency amendments attached to a 
regular appropriation bill.
  The problem with this amendment is that in addition to going after 
the legitimate target, which these gentleman to after, they also 
preclude us from using the fastest possible route to meet an emergency 
when one arises by saying in effect that if we happen to add Rwandan 
aid to the foreign assistance bill, then every other item in that bill 
is subject to an independent action by the House.
  Now, I do not see any reason to require that that be done. In that 
case, you would have the tail wagging the dog, and I do not think you 
would accomplish the purpose that the gentleman talk about.
  So I would simply suggest if you want to keep extraneous items off, 
be my guest. I am happy to cooperate in devising such a procedure. I 
have only been chairman of this committee for a few months.
  But I would point out that to say that we cannot meet an immediate 
human disaster, such as we have in Rwanda, by moving along the fastest 
possible track, as we did by attaching it to the foreign assistance 
bill, is I think a major mistake.
  To suggest that we should have had to run through a separate 
appropriation bill in order to deal with the fact that SBA was running 
out of money and we needed to keep them in business to deal with the 
problems in Georgia, in Florida, and in California, is I think ill-
advised, and I would urge you not to do it.
  Mr. KASICH. Madam Chairman, I yield myself 4 minutes.
  Let me say, first of all, the emergencies that we are referring to 
are emergencies that occurred before the present chairman took over. 
But let me also say that I have no doubt in my mind of what will happen 
when we get emergencies. In fact, if we have an emergency for aid for 
Rwanda, or for people who are having difficulty, we can pass an 
emergency bill or something like that in 24 hours. To argue that we do 
not have time to do that is false.
  When the LA earthquake relief bill came, it was introduced as an 
emergency bill to do four things: One was to provide $7.8 billion for 
LA earthquake relief; $1.2 billion for DOD, which many Members objected 
to in this House; $436 million for Midwest flood relief, and $315 
million for a 1989 earthquake. But the simple fact is these were the 
four emergency requests as introduced.
  I am about to show you the list of items, the nonemergency items that 
were added to this bill.
  All of these items right here were added to this bill. The $1.4 
million to fight potato fungus; the $23 million for FDA pay raises; the 
$14.4 million for the National Park Service; the $12.4 million for the 
Bureau of Indian Affairs; $550,000 for the U.S. Trade Rep Travel 
Office; $13.1 million to copy White House electronic messages; $300,000 
for the Council on Environmental Quality personnel; $698 million for 
pension and disability benefits; $103 million for readiness benefits; 
$56 million for NASA; $20 million for the fingerprint lab in West 
Virginia; $40 million for the space rehap module; $61 million for job 
training; $10 million for a study measuring employment; $1 million for 
the office; and $10 million for an Amtrak station in New York.

                              {time}  1440

  This was all added. Now, do I object to all of these items? The 
answer is no. I do not object to them. But they do not need to be put 
on the fast track in an emergency bill.
  What I am asking the House to do today is to approve these items in 
an emergency bill and leave all these off. These ought to be done in 
the normal course of doing things when it comes to appropriations.
  When we go home to our districts, our constituents say to us, ``Why 
do they have to attach all of these riders to these bills?'' The simple 
fact of the matter is, we do not have to, and we can strike a very 
strong blow for saying if we have an emergency that affects people in 
this country, let us not hold that bill up by squabbling about the 
nonemergency items that have been added.
  Furthermore, if the items get added in the U.S. Senate, where a 
number of them were added, we get faced in the House with voting on a 
conference report. We have to reject the conference report to send 
money to people who are in trouble and be forced to accept all these 
items, many of which we may not agree with. That does not make sense.
  The simple fact of the matter is that these emergency bills should 
not be loaded up. If we have an emergency, we should work day and night 
until we produce the money to help fix the emergency.
  But to argue that we ought to add it up with all this, that is not 
what the people want.
  Our efforts here in the Congress now are designed, the efforts of the 
gentleman from Minnesota [Mr. Penny] and the gentleman from Texas [Mr. 
Stenholm] and I are designed to restore a little credibility to the 
issue of spending in this House. And the first big blow that we can 
land to restore that credibility is to chop this list off and do it 
with a regular process, not having it carried by a vehicle that 
involves true difficulties and true problems that affect people that 
need to be considered on a very aggressive time schedule.
  The bottom line is, if we do not want the riders, if we do not want 
the extra things considered, if we want it to be done in a thoughtful, 
normal route, we have got to vote for Penny-Kasich-Stenholm.
  Once Members do that, once they vote for Penny-Kasich-Stenholm, we 
will then have to come to the floor and defeat Spratt which essentially 
says that we can come to the floor and do what we currently do.
  The bottom line is, folks, come to the floor on a bipartisan basis, 
strike a blow for an elimination of riders to bill. Do what our 
constituents want. The bottom line is, keep it clean. Take care of 
people that have trouble and do not load up the bills with these kind 
of lists.
  Mr. OBEY. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself 1 minute.
  Mr. Chairman, I want to simply make two points or to make one point 
and ask one question.
  As I indicated earlier, that chart refers to something that happened 
last year. I was not chairman last year. I want that clear.
  Second, I have no objection to the gentleman going after that list. I 
do not think that list ought to be on that chart.
  My question is this: Why in going after that list, why in going after 
the illegitimate add-ons that the gentleman sees in the process, why 
does he also insist in preventing us from meeting a lifesaving 
obligation, if we are faced with one, by adopting the fastest possible 
route and adding an amendment to the regular appropriation bill? What 
does adding a supplemental emergency to a regular appropriation bill 
have to do with that list?
  Why does the gentleman have to mix the two? I would be happy to join 
him if he did not do the latter.
  Mr. KASICH. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself 45 seconds.
  The answer to that is simple. If we have a crisis in Rwanda, I am the 
first person on the floor working with anybody on the other side of 
aisle to take care of that crisis. We do not need to take care of that 
crisis by sticking it in an appropriations bill. There is too many 
problems. That is how we get that big, long list.
  What I am saying is, let us hold everything. If we have a crisis in 
Rwanda or if we have a crisis with anything in this country, hold the 
horses, stop the House and pass the emergency bill. That is the 
quickest way to do it. Then the gentleman from Minnesota [Mr. Penny] 
and I have to come to the House floor and we are trying to take the 
extraneous items out and we get into debate. Are we trying to slow down 
earthquake aid? The simple fact of the matter is, we are not.
  The bottom line is, the chairman has not bought a bill yet but there 
is a bill coming that is going to of that attached to it. What I will 
say to the gentleman is in order to prevent it, if the gentleman agrees 
we should not have these extraneous items, then let us just consider 
emergencies clean. The message here is, keep it clean. Do not load it 
up with riders.
  Mr. OBEY. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself 30 seconds.
  We have had two emergency supplementals. We have had the SBA 
emergency supplemental last week. We had the Rwandan supplemental. The 
gentleman may think that dealing with Rwanda in an independent bill 
would have been faster. I would suggest to the gentleman the way the 
Senate operates, we could have been slowed down for weeks. There were 
lives at stake. We moved on the vehicle that we knew could get through 
here the fastest. That happened to be the regular bill. That may not 
always be the case. But it certainly was in that instance.
  We did not have to take the time to go through eight committees to 
get approval before the Members dealt with the problem.
  Mr. KASICH. Mr. Chairman, I yield 3 minutes to the distinguished 
gentleman from Minnesota [Mr. Penny].
  (Mr. PENNY asked and was given permission to revise and extend his 
remarks.)
  Mr. PENNY. Mr. Chairman, there are fundamental imperatives at stake 
on this issue today. Among them the need to be respectful of the people 
who pay the bills, the taxpayers. In this instance we are talking about 
borrowing money.
  Obviously, at some point this money has to be repaid. But in the 
meantime, if we are to ask American taxpayers to shoulder a debt 
burden, to finance the very real needs of those faced with a natural 
disaster or some other emergency, we ought not disrespect the American 
taxpayers by then larding these bills up with unrelated items.
  The earthquake measure referred to earlier started out at about $8 
billion. By the time we were done it was $11.2 billion. We disrespect 
the American taxpayers by not restraining ourselves better in times of 
a real emergency.
  I have no quarrel with the current chairman of the Committee on 
Appropriations. He has throughout his career objected to this kind of 
pork barrel spending. I trust that under his leadership we will not see 
this kind of activity on emergency spending measures. But a decent 
chairman though he is, he will not be the chairman forever. And 
consequently, we need to talk about the underlying policy on these 
emergency spending measures.
  Furthermore, larding up these bills disrespects the majority of the 
membership in this institution. Those handful who serve on a conference 
committee or serve on the powerful Committee on Appropriations are in 
an advantageous position because they are the ones that take the pork 
home.
  The list just recited by the gentleman from Ohio can be identified 
district by district and in most cases my colleagues will find it 
reflects projects that benefit Members who served on the conference 
committee. That behavior disrespects the entire membership here, by 
taking advantage of an emergency bill and our vote for that emergency 
situation in order to pork up the bill for their own home districts. It 
is not right. It is disrespectful.
  And finally, we disrespect the victims of these natural disasters, 
because we demonstrate to them that even in the time of their greatest 
need,we cannot resist the temptation to lard up these bills with 
projects important to our home State that have nothing to do with the 
disaster and have nothing to do with an emergency situation.
  We need to convey to the American public a far more serious process 
here in Congress, if we want Americans to once again respect the U.S. 
Congress. One small step in that direction is to clean up the process 
by which we handle real emergencies.
  Let us keep it clean. Let us keep it simple. Let us do right by the 
membership. Let us do right by the taxpayers. Let us do right by those 
victims of these natural disasters. Vote for the Kasich-Penny-Stenholm 
substitute.
  Mr. OBEY. Mr. Chairman, I yield 1 minute to the distinguished 
gentleman from South Carolina [Mr. Spratt].
  Mr. SPRATT. Mr. Chairman, could I engage the gentleman from Ohio in a 
colloquy.
  The list that the gentleman just displayed there on his chart of 
nonemergency items. There is a statement in the gentleman's ``Dear 
Colleague'' from him and the gentleman from Texas [Mr. Stenholm] and 
the gentleman from Minnesota [Mr. Penny] to the effect that this 
spending also is exempt from the discretionary spending caps imposed in 
1990 as a key instrument of deficit reduction. This exemption adds to 
the many temptations of these measures.

                              {time}  1450

  Mr. KASICH. Mr. Chairman, will the gentleman yield?
  Mr. SPRATT. I yield to the gentleman from Ohio.
  Mr. KASICH. Mr. Chairman, that statement was inaccurate.
  Mr. SPRATT. It is incorrect. I simply wanted it made clear that 
everything that was added has to come in under the 602 (a) and (b) 
allocated. It cannot come in as emergency spending and transmuted 
somehow.
  Mr. KASICH. If the gentleman will continue to yield, that is correct. 
The point we would make, of course, is when we go to rescissions and 
expirations to try to pay for it, we question, as CBO did, whether the 
money is really there to be saved in order to pay for these programs. 
We sent about a dozen ``Dear Colleagues,'' and I have to tell the 
gentleman that one got out and it is not accurate.
  Mr. SPRATT. I appreciate the gentleman's clarification.
  Mr. KASICH. Mr. Chairman, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from 
Iowa [Mr. Nussle].
  Mr. NUSSLE. Mr. Chairman, I thank the gentleman for yielding time to 
me.
  Mr. Chairman, I would also like to reiterate the message we are 
trying to convey today. That is to keep it clean.
  I would suggest to the distinguished chairman of the Committee on 
Appropriations that in fact, under his watch, it may be true that we 
have not had an emergency spending bill that has been larded up with 
pork, but contrary to the historical trend in the House of 
Representatives, the distinguished chairman may not be chairman for 
life. We have to make sure that when we have the opportunity to clean 
up the process, we take that opportunity.
  Last year, Mr. Chairman, I took the floor with many Members of 
flooded districts, and we suggested it was time to clean up the process 
then. We were told by many distinguished colleagues that now was not 
the time. This is last year. They said ``Wait until next year. Wait 
until we are dry. Wait until we do not have a disaster. Then we can 
clean up the process.''
  Mr. Chairman, I would suggest to the Members today, what is wrong? 
Why can we not do it today? What are we worried about? We have 
eloquent, very credible statements here today that it will never happen 
again. Then what is wrong with putting proof into the rules, and to 
suggest to all of us that we should keep it clean, that we should not 
have all of these add-ons?
  Somebody described it to me once very simply. They said ``You know 
what these emergency spending bills are like? It is like putting a 
Christmas tree in the rotunda of the Capitol and letting every Member 
of Congress run past and hang on their little special ornament.''
  Heaven forbid anyone would vote against Christmas. Heaven forbid 
anyone would stand up here and say that we cannot get spending and 
money to victims, but if you try and attack those amounts, if you try 
and attack those special projects, then you are beaten down.
  Mr. Chairman, I would suggest to the gentleman that it took a long 
time last year to get through flood relief. It took a long time this 
year to get through earthquake relief. There is only one reason why it 
took that long time. There is only one reason, because we needed time 
in the conference committee to add on all these special projects.
  It is time to keep it clean, and it is time to bring some honor back 
to the process of getting hard-earned tax dollars to the victims of 
this country.
  Mr. OBEY. Mr. Chairman, I yield 3 minutes to the gentleman from 
Minnesota [Mr. Sabo], the distinguished chairman of the Committee on 
the Budget.
  (Mr. SABO asked and was given permission to revise and extend his 
remarks.)
  Mr. SABO. Mr. Chairman, I thank the gentleman for yielding time to 
me.
  Mr. Chairman, I frankly was not planning on speaking on this 
amendment, but I hear some of this rhetoric that goes on and I think 
the rhetoric does a disservice to the Congress and to the elected 
Representatives.
  I think there are legitimate issues that are raised in the discussion 
on this amendment, on whether emergency appropriations should at times 
have nonemergency appropriations that are within the spending limits, 
or which are paid for by rescissions or, as the chairman of the 
Committee on Appropriations asked, whether we should be able to add 
emergency appropriations to a normal, ongoing appropriation bill that 
is about to be passed. That is a legitimate debate. I happen to 
personally think that we make a mistake when we tie our hands in the 
legislative process, so that I will vote against the amendment, but 
that is not why I speak.
  Mr. Chairman, I hear speaker after speaker come up to this podium and 
talk about the Congress exercising any of its independent judgment as 
being larding and as pork. To me, that degrades this institution. The 
gentleman is right, the gentleman from Ohio [Mr. Kasich] has not used 
those comments. His debate has been legitimate.
  We exercise judgment as the elected people representing our districts 
and the people of this country. There are times our judgment is 
different than the appointed people in an administration. Sometimes 
they are right, sometimes they are wrong. I would never claim that we 
are 100 percent right, but I have watched this body for over 16 years, 
and when we make our independent judgments, I think we are more often 
right than the administration is.
  Somehow there is this theory that Members who serve here have no 
judgment, have no sense of public duty, but if you get appointed by the 
President, get confirmed by the Senate, become a Cabinet position, 
appoint other people to work under you, you have divine judgment. I 
have never observed that happening.
  Mr. Chairman, we make judgments and administrations make judgments. 
Neither is larding or pork. It may be the case occasionally, but that 
happens historically, I expect, more often out of the administration 
and by political appointees and the executive than it does in Congress.
  Let me suggest also, Mr. Chairman, that maybe the things that skew 
what happens and where money flows in this country is more heavily 
dependent on distribution formulas written into big bills at times than 
specific actions of either this Congress or the executive.
  Mr. Chairman, I would plead with Members to not make their case with 
those inflammatory remarks, because they are not accurate. Mr. 
Chairman, I will oppose this amendment because I think it limits 
flexibility that is needed, but I rise to speak not because of that 
opposition, but because of rhetoric which I think degrades this elected 
institution.
  Mr. KASICH. Mr. Chairman, I yield 1 minute to the gentleman from 
Illinois [Mr. Fawell].
  Mr. FAWELL. Mr. Chairman, I thank the gentleman for yielding time to 
me.
  Mr. Chairman, I rise in support of the Kasich-Penny-Stenholm 
amendment to H.R. 4906. As cochairman of the bipartisan Porkbusters 
Coalition, I have been a staunch opponent of extraneous spending 
provisions in emergency supplemental appropriations bills. In the past, 
some Members of Congress have consistently tucked unrelated non-
emergency projects which would be unable to receive funding through the 
regular budget process into emergency spending proposals. Opponents of 
these projects are then left with the Hobson's choice, of voting 
against much needed aid to the victims of earthquakes, floods, or other 
natural disasters; or voting for adding the costs of non-emergency 
pork-barrel projects to the budget deficit. Not everyone will be able 
to handle the Senate.
  As mentioned, we last experienced this phenomenon, earlier this year, 
during House consideration of the emergency supplemental for earthquake 
victims in Los Angeles, which was loaded with funding for unrelated 
projects far from the earthquake epicenter such as a new $10 million 
Amtrak station in New York, sugar cane mill projects in Hawaii, and a 
$20 million fingerprint lab in West Virginia. Nor are we repentant once 
it is done. Going after them is useless. I am the lead sponsor of 
legislation to rescind funding for just three: the most outlandish: the 
Amtrak station, sugar cane mills, and the fingerprint lab. However, 
despite the cosponsorship of 65 Members of Congress and the rhetorical 
support of many others, this bill will likely never make it to the 
House floor due to the opposition of a few powerful Members. We need to 
pass the Stenholm-Penny-Kasich amendment to give Members the ability to 
simply strike these unrelated projects on a point of order, and ensure 
that all future emergency spending measures are pork-free.
  Mr. Chairman, I urge all members to vote for the Stenholm-Penny-
Kasich amendment, and against the Spratt proposal.
  Mr. OBEY. Mr. Chairman, I would ask how much time each side has 
remaining.
  The CHAIRMAN. The gentleman from Ohio [Mr. Kasich] has 1\1/2\ minutes 
remaining. The gentleman from Wisconsin [Mr. Obey] has 3\1/2\ minutes 
remaining.

                              {time}  1500

  Mr. OBEY. Mr. Chairman, I yield 30 seconds to the gentleman from 
Texas [Mr. Stenholm].
  Mr. STENHOLM. Mr. Chairman, I thank the gentleman for yielding me the 
time.
  Mr. Chairman, I do so to acknowledge that I concur with his remarks 
that there has been no instance that I can recall since he has been 
chairman that this is a problem.
  Mr. Chairman, I have appreciated the fact that the gentleman and his 
statements have agreed with most of what our amendment is progressing 
to do today.
  The only point I would make and would hope it would influence those 
who might vote with us is that this takes away the temptation in 
conferences from the other body absolutely so that the integrity of 
this institution will in fact be restored by supporting the Penny-
Kasich-Stenholm amendment. It does not cast any disparagement 
whatsoever on the appropriators in the House.
  Mr. OBEY. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself the balance of my time.
  Mr. Chairman, a minute ago we received a lecture from a Member about 
the necessity to be respectful of the taxpayers. I take a back seat to 
no one and neither does my committee in our respect for taxpayers. That 
is why our committee recommended to this House 395 spending cuts so far 
this year. That is why we eliminated 36 programs entirely. That is why 
we knocked out $26 billion in outmoded spending to try to make room for 
higher priority spending and use some of the rest of it for deficit 
reduction. It is because of our respect for the taxpayers and the 
burden they bear that we have seen the appropriated portion of the 
budget decline from the 1960's when it was 13 percent of our total 
national income to 7.7 percent today and to 6.7 percent by the end of 
next year.
  Mr. Chairman, we have also been told that we could get emergency aid 
to people who need it by simply producing an emergency bill, that we 
could do that just as fast as the process which we sometimes use now. I 
want to point out that in the case of Rwandan aid, people were dying. 
Frankly, I did not give a damn about procedural niceties in the House 
at that time. I cared about getting help to people as fast as possible 
so we could save lives and save lots of them.
  So the very night that the President asked us for emergency help, we 
gave it to him and we put it in the regular appropriation bill, the 
very night we were asked to do so. If we had tried to put in a special 
appropriation bill, we would have been hung up for a couple of weeks, 
and anybody who has an ounce of knowledge about what happens in the 
other body would understand that.
  When Hurricane Andrew was passed, when we provided emergency 
assistance for that, we provided it by attaching that amendment to a 
vehicle which had already been sent over to the Senate. That came back 
to us in the fastest possible manner. We could have begun the long 
drone of the usual congressional process, but we decided that the 
emergency situation dictated otherwise. We got that help to people 
immediately. I am sorry that offends the procedural sensibilities of 
some Members around here, but frankly I think results are a whole lot 
more important than your feelings. That is why I oppose this amendment.
  Mr. KASICH. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself the balance of my time.
  Mr. Chairman, let me say first of all I am not sure whether we think 
the Senate is good or we think the Senate is bad. If we think the 
Senate is bad, which is what the indications are, then this is designed 
to prevent them from doing bad things.
  Secondly, there is nothing that prevents us from precipitously 
passing an emergency. The gentleman from Minnesota [Mr. Penny], the 
gentleman from Texas [Mr. Stenholm], and I will work day and night. 
Should we have a crisis when it comes to anything involving these 
United States or anything like this Congress and the President believes 
is an emergency, we should stop all business and we should pass that 
emergency. We will work and we will do it.
  Mr. Chairman, what this bill does is it says to our constituents, we 
can go home this weekend and we can eliminate the riders. This is what 
our constituents are frustrated about. They are frustrated about this 
getting on the fast track and being tied in with an emergency and 
letting the emergency crisis be used as a vehicle to pass all of these 
items that have not undergone the normal process. People want the line 
item veto at home, and the reason they want the line item veto is they 
are sick and tired of the riders. The bottom line is we can take care 
of emergencies, we can take care of people's problems, and we can stop 
these bills from being added up.
  Come to the floor and vote for responsible budgeting. Vote for Penny-
Kasich-Stenholm.
  Mr. DERRICK. Mr. Chairman, the Stenholm-Penny-Kasich amendment is our 
second-best choice today, in my judgment. If the problem is 
nonemergency items in emergency bills, at least that is the problem the 
amendment addresses.
  It is one thing to create a point of order against consideration of 
emergency bills containing non-emergency items. At least that is an 
internal matter, and under the Constitution both Houses can waive or 
modify that rule in the ordinary course of business.
  But the amendment goes too far when it tries to prevent Congress from 
including non-emergency items in emergency bills by prohibiting OMB 
from adjusting the caps if emergency bills include non-emergency items 
other than rescissions. I believe Congress should make the decision of 
how it should legislate, of what we include in our bills, and leave OMB 
and the executive branch out of it.
  Congress needs to be flexible. Why can't a majority of the Members of 
both Houses be trusted to decide, collectively, what provisions they 
want to put into emergency bills? Under the pending amendment, even if 
every Member of this Congress voted to enact a non-emergency provision 
on an emergency bill, even something innocuous like congratulating the 
distinguished minority leader on the occasion of his receipt of the 
Presidential Medal of Freedom, that inclusion would have consequences. 
OMB could not adjust the caps. Any resulting spending breach would lead 
to a sequester. What sense does that make?
  By contrast, the Spratt bill would simply write into the Budget Act a 
provision designed to guarantee Members an opportunity to offer 
amendments to strike out non-emergency provisions if they chose. A 
majority could get rid of the provisions. The Spratt bill would make it 
easier to get a recorded vote on the amendments. But it would not 
involve OMB in what is and ought to be a purely congressional 
prerogative.
  Nor is there anything wrong with including a single emergency in 
another bill, such as emergency aid for Rwandan refugees, in a regular 
appropriation bill. Yet the amendment would prevent OMB from adjusting 
the cap if we did it that way. I submit that makes little sense, at 
least not when compared to the Spratt alternative.
  Mr. Chairman, I urge the committee to reject the amendment. It is the 
second-best alternative before us, the best being the Spratt bill. We 
ought not settle for second best.
  The CHAIRMAN pro tempore (Mr. Rahall). The question is on the 
amendment in the nature of a substitute offered by the gentleman from 
Ohio [Mr. Kasich].
  The question was taken; and the Chairman pro tempore announced that 
the noes appeared to have it.


                             recorded vote

  Mr. KASICH. Mr. Chairman, I demand a recorded vote.
  A recorded vote was ordered.
  The vote was taken by electronic device, and there were--ayes 322, 
noes 99, not voting 18, as follows:

                             [Roll No. 402]

                               AYES--322

     Ackerman
     Allard
     Andrews (ME)
     Andrews (NJ)
     Andrews (TX)
     Archer
     Armey
     Bacchus (FL)
     Bachus (AL)
     Baesler
     Baker (CA)
     Baker (LA)
     Ballenger
     Barca
     Barcia
     Barrett (NE)
     Barrett (WI)
     Bartlett
     Barton
     Bateman
     Beilenson
     Bentley
     Bereuter
     Bilbray
     Bilirakis
     Bishop
     Bliley
     Blute
     Boehlert
     Boehner
     Bonilla
     Brewster
     Brooks
     Browder
     Brown (OH)
     Bryant
     Bunning
     Burton
     Buyer
     Byrne
     Callahan
     Calvert
     Camp
     Canady
     Cantwell
     Cardin
     Carr
     Castle
     Chapman
     Clayton
     Clement
     Clinger
     Clyburn
     Coble
     Coleman
     Collins (GA)
     Combest
     Condit
     Cooper
     Coppersmith
     Costello
     Cox
     Cramer
     Crane
     Crapo
     Cunningham
     Danner
     Darden
     de la Garza
     Deal
     DeFazio
     DeLay
     Deutsch
     Diaz-Balart
     Dickey
     Dicks
     Dooley
     Doolittle
     Dornan
     Dreier
     Duncan
     Dunn
     Edwards (TX)
     Ehlers
     Emerson
     English
     Eshoo
     Everett
     Ewing
     Farr
     Fawell
     Fields (TX)
     Filner
     Fingerhut
     Fish
     Ford (TN)
     Fowler
     Franks (CT)
     Franks (NJ)
     Frost
     Furse
     Gallegly
     Gekas
     Geren
     Gilchrest
     Gillmor
     Gilman
     Gingrich
     Glickman
     Goodlatte
     Goodling
     Gordon
     Goss
     Grandy
     Green
     Greenwood
     Gunderson
     Gutierrez
     Hall (TX)
     Hamburg
     Hamilton
     Hancock
     Hansen
     Harman
     Hastert
     Hayes
     Hefley
     Hefner
     Herger
     Hinchey
     Hoagland
     Hobson
     Hochbrueckner
     Hoekstra
     Hoke
     Holden
     Horn
     Houghton
     Huffington
     Hughes
     Hutchinson
     Hutto
     Hyde
     Inglis
     Inhofe
     Inslee
     Istook
     Jacobs
     Johnson (CT)
     Johnson (GA)
     Johnson (SD)
     Johnson, Sam
     Johnston
     Kanjorski
     Kaptur
     Kasich
     Kennedy
     Kennelly
     Kildee
     Kim
     King
     Kingston
     Kleczka
     Klein
     Klink
     Klug
     Knollenberg
     Kolbe
     Kreidler
     Kyl
     LaFalce
     Lambert
     Lancaster
     LaRocco
     Laughlin
     Lazio
     Leach
     Lehman
     Levin
     Levy
     Lewis (FL)
     Lewis (KY)
     Lightfoot
     Linder
     Lipinski
     Livingston
     Lloyd
     Long
     Lowey
     Lucas
     Machtley
     Maloney
     Mann
     Manzullo
     Margolies-Mezvinsky
     Mazzoli
     McCandless
     McCloskey
     McCollum
     McCrery
     McHale
     McHugh
     McInnis
     McKeon
     McKinney
     McNulty
     Meehan
     Menendez
     Meyers
     Mfume
     Mica
     Miller (CA)
     Miller (FL)
     Minge
     Molinari
     Montgomery
     Moorhead
     Morella
     Murphy
     Myers
     Neal (MA)
     Neal (NC)
     Norton (DC)
     Nussle
     Ortiz
     Orton
     Oxley
     Packard
     Pallone
     Parker
     Paxon
     Payne (VA)
     Penny
     Peterson (FL)
     Peterson (MN)
     Petri
     Pickett
     Pombo
     Pomeroy
     Porter
     Portman
     Poshard
     Price (NC)
     Pryce (OH)
     Quillen
     Ramstad
     Ravenel
     Reed
     Regula
     Richardson
     Ridge
     Roberts
     Roemer
     Rogers
     Rohrabacher
     Ros-Lehtinen
     Rose
     Roth
     Roukema
     Rowland
     Royce
     Sanders
     Sangmeister
     Santorum
     Sarpalius
     Sawyer
     Saxton
     Schaefer
     Schenk
     Schiff
     Schroeder
     Schumer
     Scott
     Sensenbrenner
     Shaw
     Shays
     Shepherd
     Shuster
     Sisisky
     Skelton
     Smith (MI)
     Smith (NJ)
     Smith (OR)
     Smith (TX)
     Snowe
     Solomon
     Spratt
     Stark
     Stearns
     Stenholm
     Strickland
     Stump
     Stupak
     Swett
     Talent
     Tanner
     Tauzin
     Taylor (MS)
     Taylor (NC)
     Tejeda
     Thomas (CA)
     Thomas (WY)
     Thurman
     Torkildsen
     Torricelli
     Traficant
     Tucker
     Underwood (GU)
     Upton
     Valentine
     Volkmer
     Vucanovich
     Walker
     Weldon
     Wheat
     Williams
     Wolf
     Wyden
     Young (AK)
     Young (FL)
     Zeliff
     Zimmer

                                NOES--99

     Abercrombie
     Applegate
     Barlow
     Berman
     Bevill
     Blackwell
     Bonior
     Borski
     Boucher
     Brown (CA)
     Brown (FL)
     Clay
     Collins (IL)
     Collins (MI)
     Conyers
     Coyne
     de Lugo (VI)
     DeLauro
     Dellums
     Dingell
     Dixon
     Durbin
     Edwards (CA)
     Engel
     Evans
     Faleomavaega (AS)
     Fazio
     Fields (LA)
     Foglietta
     Ford (MI)
     Frank (MA)
     Gallo
     Gejdenson
     Gephardt
     Gibbons
     Gonzalez
     Hall (OH)
     Hastings
     Hilliard
     Hoyer
     Jefferson
     Johnson, E. B.
     Kopetski
     Lewis (CA)
     Lewis (GA)
     Manton
     Markey
     Martinez
     Matsui
     McDermott
     Meek
     Mineta
     Mink
     Moakley
     Mollohan
     Murtha
     Nadler
     Oberstar
     Obey
     Olver
     Owens
     Pastor
     Payne (NJ)
     Pelosi
     Pickle
     Rahall
     Rangel
     Romero-Barcelo (PR)
     Rostenkowski
     Roybal-Allard
     Rush
     Sabo
     Serrano
     Skaggs
     Skeen
     Slaughter
     Smith (IA)
     Stokes
     Studds
     Swift
     Synar
     Thompson
     Thornton
     Torres
     Towns
     Unsoeld
     Velazquez
     Vento
     Visclosky
     Walsh
     Waters
     Watt
     Waxman
     Whitten
     Wilson
     Wise
     Woolsey
     Wynn
     Yates

                             NOT VOTING--18

     Becerra
     Derrick
     Flake
     Grams
     Hunter
     Lantos
     McCurdy
     McDade
     McMillan
     Michel
     Moran
     Quinn
     Reynolds
     Sharp
     Slattery
     Spence
     Sundquist
     Washington

                              {time}  1524

  The Clerk announced the following pairs:
  On this vote:

       Mr. Grams for, with Mr. Becerra against.
       Mr. Quinn for, with Mr. Derrick against.

  Messrs. BEILENSON, NEAL of Massachusetts, CARR of Michigan, PETERSON 
of Florida, HEFNER, and ORTIZ, and Mrs. LLOYD changed their vote from 
``no'' to ``aye.''
  So the amendment in the nature of a substitute was agreed to.
  The result of the vote was announced as above recorded.
  The CHAIRMAN pro tempore (Mr. Rahall). It is now in order to consider 
amendment No. 4 printed in House Report No. 103-690.
  Mr. SPRATT. Mr. Chairman, in light of the substantial vote in favor 
of Stenholm-Penny-Kasich, the last vote, I decline the right afforded 
me under the rule to call up the base bill as the final substitute.
  The CHAIRMAN. Under the rule, the Committee rises.
  Accordingly, the Committee rose; and the Speaker pro tempore (Mr. 
Hastings) having assumed the chair, Mr. Rahall, Chairman pro tempore of 
the Committee of the Whole House on the State of the Union, reported 
that that Committee, having had under consideration the bill, (H.R. 
4906) to amend the Congressional Budget and Impoundment Control Act of 
1974 to limit consideration of nonemergency matters in emergency 
legislation, pursuant to House Resolution 513, he reported the bill 
back to the House with an amendment adopted by the Committee of the 
Whole.
  The SPEAKER pro tempore. Under the rule, the previous question is 
ordered.
  The question is on the amendment.
  The amendment was agreed to.
  The SPEAKER pro tempore. The question is on the engrossment and third 
reading of the bill.
  The bill was ordered to be engrossed and read a third time, and was 
read the third time.
  The SPEAKER pro tempore. The question is on the passage of the bill.
  The question was taken; and the Speaker pro tempore announced that 
the ayes appeared to have it.


                             Recorded Vote

  Mr. BILBRAY. Mr. Speaker, I demand a recorded vote.
  A recorded vote was ordered.
  The vote was taken by electronic device, and there were--ayes 406, 
noes 6, not voting 22, as follows:

                             [Roll No. 403]

                               AYES--406

     Abercrombie
     Ackerman
     Allard
     Andrews (ME)
     Andrews (NJ)
     Andrews (TX)
     Applegate
     Archer
     Armey
     Bacchus (FL)
     Bachus (AL)
     Baesler
     Baker (CA)
     Baker (LA)
     Ballenger
     Barca
     Barcia
     Barlow
     Barrett (NE)
     Barrett (WI)
     Bartlett
     Barton
     Bateman
     Beilenson
     Bentley
     Bereuter
     Berman
     Bevill
     Bilbray
     Bilirakis
     Bishop
     Blackwell
     Bliley
     Blute
     Boehlert
     Boehner
     Bonilla
     Borski
     Boucher
     Brewster
     Brooks
     Browder
     Brown (CA)
     Brown (FL)
     Brown (OH)
     Bryant
     Bunning
     Burton
     Buyer
     Byrne
     Callahan
     Calvert
     Camp
     Canady
     Cantwell
     Cardin
     Carr
     Castle
     Chapman
     Clay
     Clayton
     Clement
     Clinger
     Clyburn
     Coble
     Coleman
     Collins (GA)
     Collins (IL)
     Collins (MI)
     Combest
     Condit
     Conyers
     Cooper
     Coppersmith
     Costello
     Cox
     Coyne
     Cramer
     Crane
     Crapo
     Cunningham
     Danner
     Darden
     de la Garza
     Deal
     DeFazio
     DeLauro
     DeLay
     Dellums
     Deutsch
     Diaz-Balart
     Dickey
     Dicks
     Dingell
     Dixon
     Dooley
     Doolittle
     Dornan
     Dreier
     Duncan
     Dunn
     Durbin
     Edwards (CA)
     Edwards (TX)
     Ehlers
     Emerson
     Engel
     English
     Eshoo
     Evans
     Everett
     Ewing
     Farr
     Fawell
     Fazio
     Fields (TX)
     Filner
     Fingerhut
     Fish
     Foglietta
     Ford (MI)
     Ford (TN)
     Fowler
     Frank (MA)
     Franks (CT)
     Franks (NJ)
     Frost
     Furse
     Gallegly
     Gallo
     Gejdenson
     Gekas
     Gephardt
     Geren
     Gibbons
     Gilchrest
     Gillmor
     Gilman
     Gingrich
     Goodlatte
     Goodling
     Gordon
     Goss
     Grandy
     Green
     Greenwood
     Gunderson
     Gutierrez
     Hall (OH)
     Hall (TX)
     Hamburg
     Hamilton
     Hancock
     Harman
     Hastert
     Hastings
     Hayes
     Hefley
     Hefner
     Herger
     Hilliard
     Hinchey
     Hoagland
     Hobson
     Hochbrueckner
     Hoekstra
     Hoke
     Holden
     Horn
     Houghton
     Hoyer
     Huffington
     Hughes
     Hutchinson
     Hutto
     Inglis
     Inhofe
     Inslee
     Istook
     Jacobs
     Jefferson
     Johnson (CT)
     Johnson (GA)
     Johnson (SD)
     Johnson, E. B.
     Johnson, Sam
     Johnston
     Kanjorski
     Kaptur
     Kasich
     Kennedy
     Kennelly
     Kildee
     Kim
     King
     Kingston
     Kleczka
     Klein
     Klink
     Klug
     Knollenberg
     Kolbe
     Kopetski
     Kreidler
     Kyl
     LaFalce
     Lambert
     Lancaster
     LaRocco
     Laughlin
     Lazio
     Leach
     Lehman
     Levin
     Levy
     Lewis (CA)
     Lewis (FL)
     Lewis (GA)
     Lewis (KY)
     Lightfoot
     Linder
     Lipinski
     Livingston
     Lloyd
     Long
     Lowey
     Lucas
     Machtley
     Maloney
     Mann
     Manton
     Manzullo
     Margolies-Mezvinsky
     Markey
     Martinez
     Matsui
     Mazzoli
     McCandless
     McCloskey
     McCollum
     McCrery
     McDermott
     McHale
     McHugh
     McInnis
     McKeon
     McKinney
     McNulty
     Meehan
     Meek
     Menendez
     Meyers
     Mfume
     Mica
     Miller (CA)
     Miller (FL)
     Mineta
     Minge
     Mink
     Moakley
     Molinari
     Mollohan
     Montgomery
     Moorhead
     Morella
     Murphy
     Murtha
     Myers
     Neal (MA)
     Neal (NC)
     Nussle
     Oberstar
     Olver
     Ortiz
     Orton
     Owens
     Oxley
     Packard
     Pallone
     Parker
     Pastor
     Paxon
     Payne (NJ)
     Payne (VA)
     Pelosi
     Penny
     Peterson (FL)
     Peterson (MN)
     Petri
     Pickett
     Pickle
     Pomeroy
     Porter
     Portman
     Poshard
     Price (NC)
     Pryce (OH)
     Quillen
     Ramstad
     Rangel
     Ravenel
     Reed
     Regula
     Richardson
     Ridge
     Roberts
     Roemer
     Rogers
     Rohrabacher
     Ros-Lehtinen
     Rose
     Rostenkowski
     Roth
     Roukema
     Rowland
     Roybal-Allard
     Royce
     Rush
     Sabo
     Sanders
     Sangmeister
     Santorum
     Sarpalius
     Sawyer
     Saxton
     Schaefer
     Schenk
     Schiff
     Schroeder
     Schumer
     Scott
     Sensenbrenner
     Serrano
     Sharp
     Shaw
     Shays
     Shepherd
     Shuster
     Sisisky
     Skaggs
     Skeen
     Skelton
     Slaughter
     Smith (IA)
     Smith (MI)
     Smith (NJ)
     Smith (OR)
     Smith (TX)
     Snowe
     Solomon
     Spratt
     Stark
     Stearns
     Stenholm
     Stokes
     Strickland
     Studds
     Stump
     Stupak
     Swett
     Swift
     Synar
     Talent
     Tanner
     Tauzin
     Taylor (MS)
     Taylor (NC)
     Tejeda
     Thomas (CA)
     Thomas (WY)
     Thompson
     Thornton
     Thurman
     Torkildsen
     Torres
     Torricelli
     Towns
     Traficant
     Tucker
     Unsoeld
     Upton
     Valentine
     Velazquez
     Vento
     Visclosky
     Volkmer
     Vucanovich
     Walker
     Walsh
     Waters
     Watt
     Waxman
     Weldon
     Wheat
     Whitten
     Williams
     Wilson
     Wise
     Wolf
     Woolsey
     Wyden
     Wynn
     Young (AK)
     Young (FL)
     Zeliff
     Zimmer

                                NOES--6

     Bonior
     Gonzalez
     Nadler
     Obey
     Rahall
     Yates

                             NOT VOTING--22

     Becerra
     Derrick
     Fields (LA)
     Flake
     Glickman
     Grams
     Hansen
     Hunter
     Hyde
     Lantos
     McCurdy
     McDade
     McMillan
     Michel
     Moran
     Pombo
     Quinn
     Reynolds
     Slattery
     Spence
     Sundquist
     Washington

                             {time}   1546

  The Clerk announced the following pair:
  On this vote:

       Mr. Spence for, with Mr. Derrick against.

  So the bill was passed.
  The result of the vote was announced as above recorded.
  A motion to reconsider was laid on the table.

                          ____________________