[Congressional Record Volume 140, Number 117 (Thursday, August 18, 1994)]
[House]
[Page H]
From the Congressional Record Online through the Government Printing Office [www.gpo.gov]


[Congressional Record: August 18, 1994]
From the Congressional Record Online via GPO Access [wais.access.gpo.gov]

 
    WAIVING POINTS OF ORDER AGAINST CONFERENCE REPORT ON H.R. 4603, 
DEPARTMENTS OF COMMERCE, JUSTICE, AND STATE, THE JUDICIARY, AND RELATED 
 AGENCIES APPROPRIATIONS ACT, 1995, AND FISCAL YEAR 1994 SUPPLEMENTAL 
                             APPROPRIATIONS

  Mr. BEILENSON. Mr. Speaker, by direction of the Committee on Rules, I 
call up House Resolution 523 and ask for its immediate consideration.

                              H. Res. 523

       Resolved, That upon adoption of this resolution it shall be 
     in order to consider the conference report to accompany the 
     bill (H.R. 4603) making appropriations for the Departments of 
     Commerce, Justice, and State, the Judiciary, and related 
     agencies programs for the fiscal year ending September 30, 
     1995, and making supplemental appropriations for these 
     departments and agencies for the fiscal year ending September 
     30, 1994, and for other purposes. All points of order against 
     the conference report and against its consideration are 
     waived. The conference report shall be considered as read.

  The SPEAKER pro tempore (Mr. Fields of Louisiana). The gentleman from 
California [Mr. Beilenson] is recognized for 1 hour.
  Mr. BEILENSON. Mr. Speaker, for the purpose of debate only, I yield 
the customary one-half hour to our colleague, the gentleman from 
Florida [Mr. Goss], pending which I yield myself such time as I may 
consume. During debate on this resolution, all time yielded is for the 
purpose of debate only.
  Mr. Speaker, House Resolution 523 is the rule providing for the 
consideration of the conference report on H.R. 4603, the fiscal year 
1995 appropriations bill for Commerce, Justice, State, Judiciary, and 
Related Agencies.
  The rule waives all points of order against the conference report and 
against its consideration. Under the rule, the conference report shall 
be considered as read.
  Mr. Speaker, in granting this rule, the Rules Committee recognized 
that it is especially urgent that this conference agreement be 
considered today because it includes $470 million in fiscal year 1994 
supplemental appropriations for the Small Business Administration's 
Disaster Loans program account. That program provides relief for the 
victims of the Los Angeles earthquake, which had an especially 
disastrous effect on districts of some of those who represent those 
unfortunate areas, as well as for those who suffered losses from 
the recent floods in Georgia, Florida, and Alabama. In Los Angeles 
alone, the SBA has been faced with an overwhelming number of 
applications for loans from homeowners and from small businesses. The 
Small Business Administration ran out of disaster loan funds on August 
17, and in order to provide this much-needed assistance for the victims 
of these disasters as quickly as possible, and to complete the work of 
the bill, a rule was requested to waive all points of order against the 
conference report, thereby allowing expeditious consideration of the 
bill by the House.

  The rule waives clause 2(a) of rule 28, requiring a 3-day layover of 
the report before it is considered. The prohibition on legislation in 
an appropriation bill is waived against several amendments, including 
one dealing with the Omnibus Crime Control and Safe Streets Act and 
another dealing with bankruptcy judges.
  The rule prohibiting unauthorized appropriations is waived against 
amendments dealing with the Border Patrol, the Immigration Emergency 
Fund, and over $2 billion in funding for programs included in the crime 
bill, which as we all know or think we know awaits our final approval, 
including $1.3 billion for community policing; $450 million for Byrne 
formula grants; $284 million for the immigration initiative; and $130 
million for the State Criminal Aliens Assistance Program.
  Clause 3 of rule 28, dealing with scope, is waived for an amendment 
which restores Securities and Exchange Commission funding, changes in 
the Asia Foundation figures, and a new title providing funding for a 
variety of programs through the crime bill's trust fund.
  Mr. Speaker, the waivers also protect sections of the agreement 
against points of order because it contains appropriations for several 
agencies that have not been reauthorized, and a number of general 
provisions, most of which have been carried for several years.
  Authorization has not yet been enacted for most of the appropriations 
items in the Department of Justice needed for the war on crime and 
drugs, including the FBI, the DEA, the INS, the U.S. Attorneys, and the 
Byrne grants for State and local law enforcement assistance.
  Mr. Speaker, the conference agreement on H.R. 4603 provides over $26 
billion in funding for fiscal year 1995. This amount is nearly $90 
million less than the administration request and about $3 billion above 
the amount enacted in fiscal year 1994, most of which is for law 
enforcement and Border Patrol enhancements. According to the House 
Committee on the Budget, the conference report is $108 million in 
budget authority and $37 million in outlays below the section 602(b) 
allocations for the subcommittee. As passed by the House originally, 
the bill appropriated $27.2 billion while the Senate version 
appropriated $28 billion.
  In addition to the supplemental appropriation for the SBA which I 
mentioned earlier, the agreement provides $12 billion for the 
Department of Justice, $4.2 billion for the Department of Commerce 
programs, nearly $3 billion for the Federal Judicial System, and $4 
billion for the Department of State, including $533 million for 
international peacekeeping activities.
  Mr. Speaker, as both the chairman and ranking minority member of the 
subcommittee testified, this bill is a major crime-fighting initiative, 
with billions of dollars for police hiring, prison construction, and a 
restoration of proposed cuts in Federal law enforcement personnel.
  The agreement includes several new immigration initiatives to help in 
the fight against illegal immigration, which is being waged primarily 
in several States, about half a dozen principally, including 
California, Florida, Texas, New York, and a couple of others. 
Substantial increases in the number of Border Patrol agents are funded 
by the agreement, and for the first time the Federal Government is 
appropriating funds for the State Criminal Alien Assistance Program 
which was first authorized back in 1986, reimbursing States at least 
partially for the costs of incarcerating undocumented criminal aliens.
  Mr. Speaker, I commend the new chairman of the subcommittee, the 
gentleman from West Virginia [Mr. Mollohan] and the ranking minority 
member, the gentleman from Kentucky [Mr. Rogers], for their cooperation 
in bringing us this measure for financing some of the functions of our 
Government that are most obvious and necessary for all of us and for 
our constituents. I know it has been a difficult task but their 
agreement on the provisions of the conference report and their ability 
to work cooperatively is, we think, in the Committee on Rules a good 
example for all of us.
  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 matter.)
  Mr. GOSS. Mr. Speaker, this Commerce, Justice, State, and Judiciary 
appropriations conference report contains money for many vital programs 
as the gentleman from California [Mr. Beilenson] has just outlined, 
including funds to combat the No. 1 problem in America, crime. In fact 
it was suggested yesterday in the Committee on Rules that perhaps we 
should scrap the so-called crime bill and just concentrate on this bill 
because we know we are going to get something done and get some money 
focused on the problem this way, because this calls for real crime 
prevention, drug enforcement, and prison construction. Those are the 
kinds of things Americans are asking for and are apparently a lot less 
controversial than some of the other sort of more welfare-social 
programs that are included in the crime bill that we were discussing 
last week and around the edges on this.

                              {time}  1110

  The conference report for H.R. 4603 contains important increases in 
programs aimed at controlling the rising tide of illegal immigration: 
$2.1 billion will help beef up safety and security of our borders and 
provides almost a thousand new Border patrol agents.
  Now that is terrific news, but it is not enough, and it is not enough 
because we know as we stand here that we have yet another problem 
coming across the Florida Straits, this time from Cuba, which is no 
surprise, and we apparently are not ready again to deal with this. And 
even with a thousand new Border Patrol agents, the estimates are we are 
not going to be able to control the illegal immigration problems we 
have got. And of course, the Federal Government, as has been pointed 
out by several speakers in the 1 minutes this morning, still has not 
paid up their debt to the States that have been most affected by the 
illegal alien problem and the lack of the Clinton administration and 
previous administrations to provide adequate border safety.
  California, Texas, Florida, and States like that come to mind. That 
is a good step in the right direction, and for that we should be happy. 
But it is not enough. States such as Florida, California, and Texas are 
currently suffering the fiscal and social consequences of the Federal 
Government's failure to control illegal immigration.
  I guess it is interesting that it has become such a point of 
desperation that the Governor of Florida, who happens to be in the same 
party as the President of the United States, is now suing the Clinton 
administration to get the money back to the State of Florida to pay for 
the failure of that Federal program.
  Increases in this bill certainly will not solve all of the problems. 
But it is going in the right direction, and it is doable. While I still 
have specific concerns over specific items such as the tremendous sums 
in this bill for U.N. preacekeeping missions, and it is not just myself 
that is concerned on that, we have plenty of cards and letters, and I 
know every other Member of this body does about how much money we are 
paying for peacekeeping, and where is it coming from, and what are we 
doing actually in peacekeeping missions, what are the beginnings of 
them and what are the ends of them. I think a majority of the Members 
recognize the importance of bringing the legislation to the floor 
despite these problems.
  However, I am troubled by the fact that this is the second rule 
granted for the consideration of this bill. Under the standing rules of 
the House, appropriations bills and conference reports, as we all know, 
are privileged, making them come to the floor without any special 
rules. This June the House considered H.R. 4603 under an open amendment 
rule, but one which waived all points of order against the bill. That 
means it protected whatever was in the bill. While that rule was 
supposedly open, that meant any Member could make an amendment, it did 
not provide for an equal playing field for the amendments because the 
amendments were not protected. So what that means to say is that people 
who put the bill together were given special protection and those 
Members who had legitimate debate points that they wanted to bring up 
were not given the same treatment, and they were subject to points of 
order, while the people who put the bill together were not. That just 
does not seem fair, and unfortunately it is getting to be a trend.
  We face a similar dilemma today. This rule provides blanket waivers 
for the conference report.
  Yesterday I asked subcommittee Chairman Mollohan what parts of the 
conference report violated House rules, and he said he did not actually 
know, that the appropriations subcommittee had not prepared such 
information. And to be very fair to the gentleman, who gave candid and 
good testimony, the gentleman from West Virginia [Mr. Mollohan], is 
certainly not the first chairman to seek a blanket waiver against all 
points of order and to not know exactly what they are. The gentleman 
from West Virginia [Mr. Mollohan], in his defense, did offer to try and 
provide the information, so this is not about what happened yesterday 
in the Rules Committee. It is about what has become an all too common 
occurrence in the Rules Committee to provide a waiver without even 
attempting to go compile and understand what violations exist in the 
bill.

  Another problem with the waiver will be highlighted by the gentleman 
from California [Mr. Rohrabacher]. He came before the Committee on 
Rules seeking to defend his right, and the right of all Members to seek 
a separate vote on an item of disagreement in the conference report. I 
find it very disturbing that a Member has to trek over to the Rules 
Committee to defend his right to seek a vote on the floor. I find it 
even more disturbing that the Committee on Rules, by recorded vote, is 
subsequently going to deny him that right.
  Mr. Speaker, while these problems might seem like small stuff to 
some, remember we are charged with upholding the constitutional rights 
of every American. It seems a very dangerous precedent to ignore the 
rights of their elected representatives, thereby refusing those 
Americans equal representation in the House. The people back in the 
district of the gentleman from California [Mr. Rohrabacher] may not 
realize that he is not being treated with the same advantage as the 
people in the district of a member of Committee on Rules, or a member 
of the committee that has brought forward this legislation, and that 
puts Americans on an unequal footing, and that is not fair.
  I think one of the things the Rules Committee is supposed to do is 
try and ensure openness, deliberation, and fairness in a debate, and I 
am not sure we have achieved that in this case, and I am not sure we 
are achieving it often enough. We have a situation today where we have 
a disaster relief fund of the Small Business Administration as the 
reason we are moving this thing so critically through. Presumably that 
fund expired on August 27, not a good time to have it expire when we 
have floods going on in Georgia, typhoons or tornadoes in South 
Carolina, flooding in Florida, and who knows what else going on. These 
are important things that we can expect we are going to be looking for 
some disaster relief.
  It strikes me as curious that we are taking up in the Rules Committee 
the remedy for this problem on the very day the fund expires, and that 
becomes our sense of urgency to rush through a fairly large piece of 
legislation. It is not exactly new, first impression legislation, but 
when we look at the number of amendments there were, well over 140, 150 
or so amendments that were considered in this conference process, 
obviously we did not have time to look at the whole, big pile. And I 
want to thank my friend, the gentleman from California [Mr. Beilenson], 
who has sought out some of the points that we are protecting because 
they have not had a chance to go all through this report in order to 
find out exactly what we are protecting by the waiver of the rules. We 
were given a short, abbreviated list of scope, germaneness, and of 
legislating, and appropriations problems that needed to be protected 
that would otherwise have points of order against them. But it was not 
by any means the whole list. It is certainly not the fault of the 
gentleman from West Virginia [Mr. Mollohan], and certainly it is 
nobody's fault in this case. But it is bad business.
  The gentleman from California [Mr. Beilenson], in good faith has 
tried to provide as much information as he can, and he has been very 
helpful. I still have not had an opportunity to review all of this. I 
am not really concerned about it because I think this bill has been 
through enough of a process. But I know there are some things in here 
that we probably do not know about that we would like to ask questions 
about, and we are providing them protection, and that does worry me 
because I know we can do better.
  Having said that, again I am not making a big fuss about this rule 
because there is so much important to go forward. But there are 
patterns here that are disturbing, and I think we have the opportunity 
to repair those problems. I hope we will take that opportunity. I do 
want to thank my friend, the gentleman from California [Mr. Beilenson], 
for sharing with me the new information this morning.
  Mr. Speaker, I include for the Record the rollcall vote in the Rules 
Committee on this conference report, as follows:

  Rollcall Vote in the Rules Committee on the Rule for the Conference 
     Report on H.R. 4603, Commerce, Justice, State Appropriations, 
                       Wednesday, August 17, 1994

       1. Dreier Motion on Blanker Waiver Exception--It was moved 
     that a point of order lie against Senate Amendment #131 
     (relating to immigration) for failure to comply with clause 2 
     of Rule XX (prohibiting unauthorized or legislative Senate 
     provisions in a conference report). Rejected: 3-4. Yeas: 
     Quillen, Dreier and Goss. Nays: Moakley, Beilenson, Hall and 
     Slaughter. Not Voting: Derrick, Frost, Bonior, Wheat, Gordon, 
     and Solomon.

  Mr. Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.
  Mr. BEILENSON. Mr. Speaker, for purposes of debate only, I yield so 
much time as he may desire and consume to the distinguished gentleman 
from California [Mr. Brown], chairman of the Committee on Science, 
Space, and Technology.
  (Mr. BROWN of California asked and was given permission to revise and 
extend his remarks.)
  Mr. BROWN of California. Mr. Speaker, I thank my distinguished 
colleague and friend from California, Mr. Beilenson, for yielding me 
this time.
  I have some problems with this bill, and I am not quite sure about 
the proper way to approach it. I likewise have some problems with this 
rule which I will describe in some detail. They follow the comments 
made by the distinguished gentleman from Florida [Mr. Goss], who 
indicated that there were some problems from his standpoint with the 
rule also.
  Before I get to that, let me briefly recite some history which is the 
basis for some of his concerns, and it goes back at least to 2 years 
ago, and actually before, in this same period of the year when we had 
appropriation conference reports coming before us with waivers of all 
points of order, with no notice to the authorizing committees as to 
material contained in the conference, which was within the jurisdiction 
of the authorizing committee. We even had a few examples where an 
effort was made to obscure and obfuscate the content of the conference 
report in order to prevent its full consideration by the Members of the 
House.
  This is a serious problem. It is a procedural problem. It is a 
problem with orderly process in the House which needs to be remedied.
  Mr. SMITH of Iowa. Mr. Speaker, will the gentleman yield?
  Mr. BROWN of California. I am happy to yield to the gentleman from 
Iowa.
  Mr. SMITH of Iowa. Mr. Speaker, those instances the gentleman is 
referring to were not with regard to the bill out of this subcommittee, 
however. We have always been completely forthcoming.
  Mr. BROWN of California. The gentleman is correct.

                              {time}  1120

  The specific remarks that I am making are not aimed at this 
subcommittee unless I specifically identify that they are. I will say 
to the gentleman from Iowa [Mr. Smith], and I have told him before, 
that I have enjoyed an unusual degree of cooperation from him when he 
was subcommittee chairman and an equally unusual amount of cooperation 
from the present chairman, who has gone out of his way to keep me 
notified of material in this bill and in this conference report which 
he thought would preempt the areas of my concern and the concerns of 
the Committee on Science, Space, and Technology.
  I will use this opportunity to thank both the gentleman from Iowa 
[Mr. Smith] and the gentleman from West Virginia [Mr. Mollohan] for the 
obvious and sincere concern. That does not mean that we have reached 
perfection. I think they recognize that, and I know the gentleman from 
West Virginia [Mr. Mollohan] has recognized that because I have gone 
into some detail to tell him why this bill is not perfect and what 
improvements I would expect in future years.
  Many of the problems in this bill have been, over the years, in large 
part caused by failures on the part of authorizing committees to fully 
authorize programs that are contained within this bill. As one of those 
authorizing committee members, I accept my share of the responsibility 
for these failures. These failures cumulatively, however, have 
contributed to a breakdown of the orderly processes of the House, have 
required that the Subcommittee on Appropriations chairman go to the 
Committee on Rules and ask for a waiver of all points of order. And 
this is not really being very helpful to maintaining the orderly course 
of business in the House.
  Now, as a result of the events of 2 years ago, as I started to 
describe, I and a number of other chairmen of authorizing committees 
proposed some modest changes in the rules of the House which were 
intended to require that authorizing committee chairmen be notified of 
material in the conference report in advance and that we be given the 
opportunity to discuss these with a certain allotment of time during 
the debate on the conference report.
  All points of order against this bill have been waived. The 
subcommittee chairman made a good-faith effort to notify me. I cannot 
say for certain that he has notified me of everything within the 
jurisdiction of my committee. I have not had the opportunity nor has my 
staff to review it in full detail.
  That is more or less immaterial because the rules have been waived. 
And if he had not said a word to me, there would still be no point of 
order that I could raise because the rules are waived.
  Similarly, as the gentleman from Florida [Mr. Goss] pointed out, 
there has not been a full presentation of all of the violations of the 
rules contained in this bill. So that the Rules Committee could not 
have specifically said the rules are waived on this and this and this, 
but not on this, for whatever the reason.
  I would suggest that to the degree that it is possible we probably 
ought to consider making some additional changes in the rules that 
would allow at least the Rules Committee to know which rules they were 
waiving. And if that is not the case at the present time, I think it 
would be generally helpful. Not that this is absolutely essential in 
connection with most legislation, but there are many age-old statements 
about the predisposition of people who have power to use that power. 
And sometimes to use it in ways which are not in the best interests for 
all of the community in which they are using that power.

  Now I am deeply concerned about that, because to the degree that 
other Members of the House feel that power is being inappropriately 
used in the House--and this applies to both Republicans and Democrats, 
I may assure my friends on the Republican side--to the degree that that 
perception exists, it creates conditions under which orderly 
legislation becomes impossible. And we have seen many examples of that.
  To the degree that the public perceives that the rules of this body 
are being violated for the interest of a few people in preferred 
positions, the confidence of the public in the workings of our 
democratic system are eroded. And this is at the root of some of the 
distrust, which we are all aware of, that the public has in their 
elected representatives.
  Now I am taking this time to make this statement in order to let all 
of my friends know that I am not trying to nitpick with the members of 
the Appropriations Committee, even less with my good friends on the 
Committee on Rules. I am trying to make the case that we need to make 
some changes here in observing the orderly process of the House for the 
protection of the institution and for its continued credibility in the 
eyes of the people of the United States.
  Now, I do not like this rule waiving all points of order. I have 
notified the Rules Committee in writing on behalf of my committee that 
we object to rules waiving all points of order. I intend to vote 
against this rule because it waives all points of order.
  I have not attempted to mount a campaign to secure the defeat of this 
rule, but I do not want my good friends on the Rules Committee to be 
surprised if I should choose to do that in connection with some of the 
other appropriation bills which are currently pending.
  Now, I have reviewed this bill, as I have already indicated, with the 
chairman, who has been unusually gracious in talking to me about it. 
And while it is not a perfect bill, it is one that I am going to 
support. And if the rules passes, as I assume that it will, I will vote 
for this conference report on final passage.
  I hope the chairman of the subcommittee will allow me a little bit of 
time during debate on the bill to say some of the good things about the 
bill and also some of the things I might object to in the bill. If he 
is willing to do that, it will be another indication of his generosity 
and his respect for his colleagues in the authorizing committee, which 
I have already praised so eloquently.
  Mr. Speaker, I hope it is not merely a reflection of the fact that he 
is a new chairman, and that these traits will not rapidly dissipate as 
he gains experience; that he will continue to demonstrate the traits of 
statesmanship and respect for his colleagues during his tenure as 
chairman of this important subcommittee.
  Mr. GOSS. Mr. Speaker, I would like to commend the chairman, the 
gentleman from California [Mr. Brown], who just spoke, on his excellent 
remarks. I think they are very much on target. I take them to heart as 
a member of the Committee on Rules, and I hope the Committee on Rules 
will deal with the points he has raised.
  Mr. Speaker, I yield 5 minutes to my distinguished colleague and 
friend, the gentleman from California [Mr. Rohrabacher].
  Mr. ROHRABACHER. I thank the gentleman for yielding this time to me.
  Mr. Speaker, I rise today on a matter of grave import to the 
integrity of our country's laws and our Nation's fiscal solvency.
  Mr. Speaker, Senate amendment 131, as amended in this conference 
report, is a legislative provision attached to this appropriations 
bill, which we have heard an eloquent description of why we should not 
be doing these things, from my friend and colleague from California, 
but this opens up a 3-year window for people who wish to flout our 
country's laws; to do so with impunity.
  I want to repeat this, Mr. Speaker, because this provision, put into 
our bill by Senator Kennedy, is a violation of both House rules and 
common sense. We should defeat it. It would, starting this October 
until October of 1997, if the Kennedy amendment becomes law, we will 
see that there will be no reason for people who want to come to this 
country to bother with the normal legal channels. That will be the 
result of the Kennedy amendment.
  All they will have to do is sneak across our border and come up with 
about $800 by any means possible and then they will be granted 
temporary residence as long as their application for permanent 
residence is pending.
  The bill makes very clear they may be granted temporary residence for 
as long as their application for permanent residence is pending. Thus 
they will be eligible to go through the application process, and during 
that process they will be here legally. Under this status they will be 
given a work permit and they will be eligible for all taxpayer-paid 
benefits, even those that by law are supposed to be denied to illegal 
aliens.
  Mr. Speaker, I would like to read this pertinent part of this 
section. It says, ``an alien physically present in the United States 
who, (A) entered the United States without inspection; or (B) is within 
one of the classes enumerated in subsection (c),'' which means people 
who have overstayed their visa, ``may apply to the Attorney General for 
the adjustment of their status.''
  What we see here is people who are present, who entered the United 
States without inspection, may apply.

                              {time}  1130

  That means they are part of the process. This is nothing more than 
another loophole that is being created in the same way that people were 
asking for political asylum have a loophole now, and are costing the 
taxpayers hundreds of millions of dollars, if not billions of dollars, 
a year.
  Mr. Speaker, my opponents claim that somehow the INS will be able to 
permit the number of people, or limit the number of people, applying by 
accepting only those applications from those whose green card 
applications will be approved. No, they will be all put into the 
process, a process that will last years, just like political asylum 
seekers. I do not see from the reading of this language how they can 
deny people and limit the number of applicants by the way this is 
written.
  Mr. Speaker, I read the House language, and it says, ``If you're 
here, and you snuck across the border or overstayed your visa, you may 
apply.'' But let us assume for the purpose of argument that they are 
right and this new immigration law will not permit anyone who sneaks 
over the border or overstays their visa to apply. Even if we assume all 
of that to be true, and I do not, they are still rewarding people who 
have blatantly violated our laws.
  Yes, there are some problems they are trying to correct, but there is 
the law of unintended consequences, like political asylum, where they 
are creating vast new problems and expenses for the American taxpayer.
  Under this provision, Mr. Speaker, anyone who thinks they are 
eligible would be a fool to obey our immigration laws and go through 
the normal process. My opponents' arguments are only about how many 
illegal aliens we will be rewarding, not whether this provision will 
make it easier for illegal aliens.
  The rules of this House are supposed to protect us against facing 
such a stark choice as rejecting an entire conference report on a major 
appropriations bill on one hand or swallowing an egregious legislative 
provision on the other. Legislative provisions, such as the Kennedy 
amendment, are supposed to be brought back as amendments in 
disagreement so the House can vote on them separately. However, the 
House is now being asked to waive all points of order against this 
conference report so this violation of the House rules and common sense 
can go forward.
  Well, I beg my colleagues not to permit this to happen, but to allow 
the normal rules to apply to consideration of the Kennedy amendment so 
that we can debate this most serious matter separately from the 
appropriations bill. Thus I am asking my colleagues to vote ``no'' on 
the previous question. If the previous question is defeated, I will 
offer an amendment to the rule which will permit a separate vote on the 
Kennedy amendment.
  Whatever the good intentions of the gentleman from California [Mr. 
Berman], and others, the gentleman from Massachusetts [Mr. Kennedy], 
this bill, I believe, and the experts with whom I have conferred also 
believe, and common sense tells us; a common sense reading, as well as 
the experts; believe that this bill will be used by illegal aliens and 
their lawyers to legally stay in our country while their case is 
pending. They may apply. Thus their case is pending. Lawyers around 
this country will use this to increase the time and money that it costs 
us for illegal aliens to stay in this country.
  Mr. Speaker, this is another loophole even bigger than the political 
asylum loophole. It will cost us hundreds of millions, even billions, 
of dollars to open this legal loophole so any illegal aliens can cross 
our border and have a legal avenue to stay in our country and receive 
benefits, Federal benefits, in the meantime. This, as I say, is a 
political asylum loophole. Why are we doing it?
  Vote ``no'' on this rule. A no vote on the previous question will 
permit us to have a separate vote on the issue. Those that vote ``no'' 
will be responsible. Those who vote ``yes,'' and, if this does come to 
where illegal aliens are using this and their lawyers are using this as 
a loophole, costing the taxpayers billions of dollars like political 
asylum, the voters will hold those Members in Congress responsible who 
have done this to the American people.
  Mr. BEILENSON. Mr. Speaker, I yield such time as he may consume to 
the gentleman from California [Mr. Berman].
  (Mr. BERMAN asked and was given permission to revise and extend his 
remarks.)
  Mr. BERMAN. Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentleman from California [Mr. 
Beilenson] for yielding this time to me, and I just want to initially 
state that I think this is a very important bill. My sincerest 
congratulations go out to both the chairman of the subcommittee and the 
ranking member for putting together a very important bill, a bill of 
particular importance to people who want to do something about the 
problem of illegal immigration because, as has been mentioned, there is 
significant new funds for border patrol, for tougher enforcement of 
immigration laws, and, for the first time, for the reimbursement for 
the incarceration of illegal criminal aliens.
  My friend, the gentleman from California [Mr. Rohrabacher] has made 
what I know to be a sincere point about his concern about a specific 
provision in this bill, this provision which was sponsored initially on 
the State Department authorization bill by Senators Alan Simpson and 
Kennedy and was actively supported in this conference by Senators 
Simpson and Kennedy, as well as Senators Byrd and Hollings and Domenici 
and has been reviewed by the appropriations members, both majority and 
ranking, does not do anything close to what the gentleman from 
California [Mr. Rohrabacher] has suggested that it does.
  Mr. Speaker, what this amendment is about is, where legally qualified 
immigrants, immigrants who are entitled to come to this country and to 
have their status adjusted because either through an employer petition 
or a family petition, and they have gone through the entire process, 
and for the process, the very final part of that process, which is the 
filing of the application and the receiving of the visa papers, the 
immigration papers, this is about where those people can get their 
legal immigrant visa. It has nothing to do with whether they get them; 
it has nothing to do with their eligibility for getting them. It does 
not create a new immigrant eligibility category or an amnesty window as 
the gentleman from California [Mr. Rohrabacher] has referred to in the 
past. It will not give anyone an immigrant visa who will not get one 
anyway. It will not increase the total number of immigrants. It does 
provide, however, substantial, and I am talking about $50 million for 
new funding for the INS to enforce the borders, to enforce the 
immigration laws, and it helps, in addition, to fight illegal 
immigration by freeing State Department consular staff from the useless 
paperwork that is now a routinized process for granting the visa after 
the entire process has been completed. It frees them to do the 
important work of fighting visa fraud and checking out applications for 
people who seek to enter this country to determine whether their 
purposes are appropriate and whether they qualify for any of the 
nonimmigrant visas that these people are supposed to handle.

  To suggest that I would support a provision which would say, for $800 
somebody who would not otherwise qualify to come to this country 
legally, can now get immigrant status is an insult to my intelligence, 
but that has been insulted many times in the past. to suggest that 
Senators Alan Simpson, or Peter Domenici, or the gentleman from 
Kentucky, Mr. Rogers, or any of the other people who have looked at 
this provision would support such an interpretation is a tremendous 
leap into fantasy.
  I want to give my colleagues one specific example of what this bill 
is about. This was told to me by a friend, a former Foreign Service 
officer, worked in the consular office in Guyana. One airline flies to 
Guyana. When Guyanese who want to come to the United States as illegal 
immigrants, have been petitioned for, have gone through the entire 
process, are in the United States, they take that one airline, fly to 
Guyana. It gets into Guyana that evening. The next morning they go to 
the American embassy, pick up their visa, their legal immigration 
papers, and take that afternoon flight back to the United States. This 
happens over and over again. Ninety-nine percent of these visas are 
routinely approved. What we are doing with this present ineffective and 
inefficient system is subsidizing primarily foreign airlines.
  So what people like Senator Simpson thought was that it made sense 
instead to raise the fees fivefold, provide a meaningful source of 
revenue for the INS to fight the illegal immigration, cut out the 
fiction that something is happening by this ridiculous process, and 
free up the embassy officials, the consular officials in our foreign 
posts, to check on whether or not somebody who is claiming to come here 
on a tourist visa and intends to return, on whether or not they have 
any kind of criminal background, on all the kinds of things that we do, 
our consular officials, to be watching for, to protect, American 
interests.

                              {time}  1140

  It is as simple as that. I appreciate the gentleman's misreading one 
provision in the bill to assume that it allows something that it does 
not allow or that something might happen that will not happen. This is 
a revenue producer, and this is an intelligent rationalization of our 
limited resources. It is supported on a broad bipartisan basis, and I 
do not think it should be the basis for anyone voting against the 
previous question.
  Mr. GOSS. Mr. Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the distinguished 
gentlewoman from Kansas [Mrs. Meyers].
  (Mrs. MEYERS of Kansas asked and was given permission to revise and 
extend her remarks.)
  Mrs. MEYERS of Kansas. Mr. Speaker, I rise in opposition to the rule. 
In particular, I am opposed to the over $27 million in pork-barrel 
spending appearing under the Small Business Administration budget. What 
do I mean by pork barrel?, I mean totally unauthorized spending.
  Mr. Speaker, this represents over 10 percent of the total Small 
Business Administration budget for fiscal year 1995, and this amount 
doesn't even include the totally unauthorized spending for the Tree 
Program. The Tree Program represents another $15 million in totally 
unauthorized spending that no one even saw fit to mention at the many 
hearings and the markup of the Small Business Reauthorization Act.
  This is particularly outrageous when you consider that we just had to 
authorize emergency spending to keep the SBA from running out of money. 
Why is the SBA out of money? Because over 17 percent of the spending in 
its budget is pork and unauthorized programs.
  Mr. Speaker, I oppose this rule and I oppose this misuse of the 
taxpayer's money.
  Mr. BEILENSON. Mr. Speaker, for the purpose of debate only, I yield 2 
minutes to the distinguished gentleman from Wisconsin [Mr. Obey], 
chairman of the Committee on Appropriations.
  Mr. OBEY. Mr. Speaker, I do not want to take very much time. I simply 
want to take this opportunity to express my admiration for the work 
that has been done by the new subcommittee chairman, the gentleman from 
West Virginia [Mr. Mollohan], and the great cooperation he has received 
from the gentleman from Kentucky [Mr. Rogers], the ranking Republican.
  As the Members in this House understand, the gentleman from West 
Virginia [Mr. Mollohan] took over this chairmanship in midstream. He 
has demonstrated, I believe, an amazingly quick ability to master the 
contents of this bill. I know he has had an awful lot of help from the 
gentleman from Iowa [Mr. Smith], who so ably chaired this subcommittee 
for years, and I know he has had a great deal of help from the 
gentleman from Kentucky [Mr. Rogers]. Despite the fact that we have had 
some serious and strong differences of opinion on several occasions, 
those differences of opinion have been worked out in an extremely 
honorable and gentlemanly manner with the gentleman from Kentucky [Mr. 
Rogers].
  I just want to say that I think this overall product is very 
defensible, and I simply want to congratulate the subcommittee for 
being able to produce this bill and finish its work so quickly, 
especially under the circumstances, with a new chair at the helm. I 
simply want to congratulate both gentlemen and indicate my happiness 
with the way in which the bill has been handled.
  Mr. MOLLOHAN. Mr. Speaker, will the gentleman yield?
  Mr. OBEY. Surely, I yield to the gentleman from West Virginia.
  Mr. MOLLOHAN. Mr. Speaker, I would just like to take this opportunity 
to thank the chairman of the committee, who also has assumed his 
responsibilities this year in midstream. I thank him for his help and 
his cooperation, and I also thank him very much for his kind remarks. I 
would like to reciprocate and tell the Members what a fine job he has 
done and express my appreciation for the guidance he has given both the 
gentleman from Kentucky [Mr. Ross], and me as we have processed this 
legislation through the subcommittee.
  Mr. OBEY. Mr. Chairman, I think that with all the turmoil surrounding 
the crime legislation, we have had a remarkable display of leadership 
from the gentleman and from the ranking Republican as well.
  Mr. GOSS. Mr. Speaker, I yield 4 minutes to the distinguished 
gentleman from Illinois [Mr. Porter].
  Mr. PORTER. Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentleman for yielding me this 
time.
  Mr. Speaker, I believe the gentleman from Kentucky and the gentleman 
from West Virginia have done a very fine job with this bill, given very 
difficult budgetary circumstances. They have prioritized spending to 
provide funds for the most vital programs.
  One of these priority programs is surrogate radio broadcasting to the 
nations of Asia--Radio Free Asia. Last week, the House adopted the 
Pelosi bill as amended by Mr. Hamilton, outlining a framework for 
promoting human rights and democracy in China. One of the primary 
elements of the Hamilton amendment was enhanced radio broadcasting to 
China through VOA and Radio Free Asia. In addition, the President has 
repeatedly highlighted Radio Free Asia as a cornerstone of his policy 
toward China and, as you know, the House adopted by an overwhelming 
margin a floor amendment to the Commerce, Justice, State bill making 
funds available for Radio Free Asia. Clearly, Radio Free Asia is an 
idea whose time has come.
  This conference report contains $10 million for startup costs for 
Radio Free Asia and an additional $85 million for short wave radio 
construction in the Pacific to benefit Radio Free Asia and VOA. The 
funds are dependent on a report from the Broadcast Board of Governors 
regarding feasibility, and we will watch carefully what the Board 
decides. I just want to take a minute to tell Members why this small 
investment in surrogate broadcasting is so important.
  Tyrants use access to information as a tool to keep their hold on 
power. during the cold war, this practice was used in Eastern Europe by 
the Soviet-backed Governments there to try to keep their people in the 
dark about the free world. The United States responded with Radio Free 
Europe and Radio Liberty. These broadcasts ultimately proved to be 
instrumental in keeping the people's spirits alive and weakening 
communism.
  Similarly, the North Koreans have practically no access to outside 
information. The people of North Korea, including right up to the 
highest levels of the military and government, have no idea what is 
really happening regarding their country's nuclear program and its 
standoff with the rest of the world or regarding North Korea's failed 
economy compared to other nations. They do not know about the economic 
and political transformations in South Korea. They are kept by their 
Government from being members of the world community.

  Although some Chinese can receive transmissions from Hong Kong or 
Taiwan, the vast majority have access only to Government-controlled 
sources of information. They must have access to news that is relevant 
to them--surrogate broadcasting.
  Democracy activists, and potential activists, must know that there 
are others out there who share their aspirations. VOA is an important 
voice telling the world about our country and what we believe in. VOA 
may have a few minutes of China-related news a week. In China, Radio 
Free Asia would cover solely issues of interest and relevance to 
Chinese, from Chinese to Chinese, not from Americans to Chinese.
  Radio Free Asia will tell the people of North Korea, China, Burma, 
Vietnam, and Laos exactly what their Governments do not want them to 
know. Once the silence is broken, the people in these countries, I 
believe, will be on a path toward democracy, free markets, and greater 
freedom.
  Mr. Speaker, I think the Commission on Broadcasting to the People's 
Republic of China said it best when they wrote, ``The fate of America 
is intertwined with the fate of American ideals.'' For individuals 
around the world, knowledge is freedom. The 1.3 billion people in the 
countries served by Radio Free Asia have no freedom. I support this 
investment in freedom, and I urge Members to vote for this conference 
report.

                              {time}  1150

  Mr. BEILENSON. Mr. Speaker, for purposes of debate only, I yield 2 
minutes to the gentleman from Georgia [Mr. Darden].
  (Mr. DARDEN asked and was given permission to revise and extend his 
remarks.)
  Mr. DARDEN. Mr. Speaker, I thank the distinguished gentleman from 
California for yielding me this time.
  Mr. Speaker, I rise today in strong support of this rule. For the 
people of my State of Georgia, the passage of this rule and 
subsequently the conference report is critical if they are to be 
allowed to pick up the pieces of their lives, move forward, and once 
again become productive in the aftermath of the recent floods.
  Many of us represent areas that have experienced disasters. It is one 
thing to see the results of these disasters on a television screen. It 
is an entirely different experience to meet with the people affected, 
talk with them, and understand their hardships.
  This bill is just the first of several that we will consider which 
addresses this crisis. But in some ways it is the most important. To 
begin with, it is time-critical. The Small Business Administration has 
already depleted all their disaster relief payments. Quick passage of 
this bill will let the SBA continue to help small businesses recover 
and give the people of Georgia, Alabama, and Florida an opportunity to 
once again become productive within the work force.
  Finally, this bill is also important because it will set the tone for 
our assistance. This is not the time to bicker over methods and 
procedures. It is time to help our citizens who have been touched by 
misfortune. I ask for your support and the people of the Southeast ask 
for your help. I urge overwhelming support and passage of the rule.
  Mr. GOSS. Mr. Speaker, I yield such time as he may consume to the 
distinguished gentleman from California [Mr. Dreier], my colleague on 
the Committee on Rules.
  Mr. DREIER. Mr. Speaker, I thank my friend from Sanibel for yielding.
  Mr. ROGERS. Mr. Speaker will the gentleman yield?
  Mr. DREIER. I yield to the gentleman from Kentucky, the distinguished 
ranking member of the subcommittee.
  Mr. ROGERS. Mr. Speaker, I just wanted to take a few seconds here to 
compliment the gentleman from Illinois [Mr. Porter], who most recently 
spoke, for his dedication and persistence in pushing for the moneys for 
Radio Free Asia. This is a very historic moment I think in the history 
of the USIA and the broadcasting sponsored by this Government, because 
this is the first moneys that will be going into broadcasting on Radio 
Free Asia.
  We all know what has happened with the tremendous success of Radio 
Liberty and Radio Europe and the Voice of America. But now we enter a 
new era, and it is thanks in no small measure to the work of the 
gentleman from Illinois, who pushed and cajoled and worked ceaselessly 
to get this program off the ground. I wanted to thank the gentleman 
from Illinois [Mr. Porter] for his work, and thank the gentleman for 
yielding.
  Mr. DREIER. Mr. Speaker, yesterday the chairman of the Rules 
Committee half-jokingly referred to those of us who insist on abiding 
by House rules as a ``vigilante committee.''
  It is a clear indication of just how far we have strayed from normal 
parliamentary procedure when the chairman of the Rules Committee, of 
all committees, ridicules those who believe in upholding the rules of 
this House--as if we are some kind of a lawless mob intent on violence 
and vengeance against this body. What have we come to?
  Mr. Speaker, last week, when we were debating the crime rule in the 
Rules Committee, the majority cited to us how many times we have waived 
all points of order against conference reports in recent times, as if 
the number of repeat offenses against the standing rules makes it 
right.
  Today we have another rule that waives all points of order against a 
conference report--your standard, boiler-plate rule for such conference 
reports, we are led to believe and accept.
  I wonder how many Members even know that conference reports do not 
require special rules--that they are privileged for House floor 
consideration so long as they are in compliance with the rules?
  They only need special rules when they are in violation of House 
rules. And this conference report apparently is in violation of every 
important rule that applies to conference reports.
  It has not been available to Members for 3 days and therefore 
violates clause 2 of rule 28. It only became available yesterday. We 
could take this up tomorrow and it would not need a waiver of the 3-day 
availability rule.
  It contains numerous legislative and unauthorized Senate amendments 
in violation of clause 2 of rule 20. We were given a list of six such 
examples, but I understand this is incomplete. There are probably 
closer to two dozen, but we have not been given an accurate count.
  The chairman of the Appropriations Subcommittee who testified before 
us indicated he did not have such a list.
  This conference report contains an unspecified number of provisions 
that are beyond the scope of anything committed to conference by either 
body, in violation of clause 3 of rule 28. This is the most serious 
offense against the House--writing new legislation in conference.
  Ordinarily, the Appropriations Committee reports Senate amendments 
which are legislative in nature or beyond scope as amendments in 
disagreement to be dealt with separately by motions after the 
conference report has been agreed to.
  In this way, we do not risk defeating the conference report and we 
can separately examine and vote on those Senate provisions which 
violate our rules. That applies as well to Senate provisions that are 
nongermane to the House passed bill.
  Under clause 4 of rule 28, if such nongermane Senate provisions are 
in the conference report, and a point of order is sustained, a motion 
to reject the provision is debatable for 40 minutes and then voted on. 
Since the rejection of a nongermane provision defeats the conference 
report, these are usually reported outside the conference report as 
amendments in disagreement. In that way, they can be dealt with without 
defeating the conference report.
  Mr. Speaker, I have taken the time to recite these rules since they 
are not specifically waived in this rule. Instead, we have a so-called 
blanket waiver that literally covers, or cover up, a variety of sins of 
which we have not been made fully aware, either by the Rules Committee 
majority or the committee bringing a conference report.
  Last year, in January, when this House adopted its rules, a new rule 
was adopted allowing an authorizing chairman, and we have one of them 
sitting right here on the House floor, to have a preferential motion to 
disagree to any Senate amendment of a legislative nature that is 
reported in disagreement on an appropriations bill.
  That was presumably done to protect the prerogatives of authorizing 
committees against Senate authorizing language in an appropriations 
bill. But, when such provisions are included in the conference report 
and protected against points of order, and has been done today in some 
two dozen instances, the authorizing committees have no recourse or 
protection. They must swallow the violations whole or reject the 
conference report.
  Mr. Speaker, this is a wakeup call for authorizing chairmen out there 
as well as for all House Members. This is not just minority moaning, 
and it is certainly not vigilantism. These rules were designed to 
protect all of us, regardless of party, against the abuses being 
perpetrated by the other body.
  You have a right to know what those violations are and to deal 
separately with them. That right is being denied by rules such as this.
  I say this is not in criticism of our conferees who had a very 
difficult task in dealing with some 162 Senate amendments. This may 
well be a very good conference report and the best that they could get.
  But that does not recuse them from bringing this up in the normal 
manner of reporting egregious violations as amendments in disagreement 
and letting the House deal with each separately.
  Mr. Speaker, I realize that this conference report is time sensitive 
due to the expiration on Wednesday of this week of the SBA Disaster 
Assistance Loan Program. But I do not think waiting 1 more day so that 
Members do have the opportunity to review this within the 3 days 
required by our rules would do great violence to that program or the 
rest of this report.
  Nor do I think the conference report would suffer any setbacks if we 
had taken up the various Senate provisions that violate our rules as 
amendments in disagreement.
  Let us get back to upholding our rules for the sake of more rational, 
deliberative, and informed decisionmaking around here.
  Mr. GOSS. Mr. Speaker, I yield 1 minute to the distinguished 
gentleman from California [Mr. Rohrabacher].

                              {time}  1200

  Mr. ROHRABACHER. Mr. Speaker, I would like to remind my colleagues 
that this vote and the vote that I will call on the previous question, 
a yes vote on the previous question will be interpreted by the 
organizations that are fighting illegal immigration as a proillegal 
immigration vote.
  Let me note, I have the bill in front of me here. It states that 
those people who can apply for the process, thus get into the process, 
they may apply, including those people who have entered the United 
States without inspection.
  This will be interpreted by lawyers throughout the United States as 
just another loophole, as we have seen through the asylum cases. It 
will cost us hundreds of millions of dollars. If that happens, the 
people who have voted yes on the previous question will be responsible, 
because they will be denying me a right to bring this up and have a 
separate vote on this very important issue.
  Let us note the procedures have not been properly seen to on this 
whole debate. The fact is, there were never any hearings in the 
Committee on the Judiciary on this.
  This is a bad procedure. It is a bad law. Vote ``no'' on the previous 
question.
  Mr. GOSS. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself the balance of my time.
  I want to say that we have already seen what happens. We have had a 
couple of authorizers come to the well and say that they have been a 
little surprised.
  The gentlewoman from Kansas [Mrs. Meyers], our ranking member on the 
Committee on Small Business, has said that she is outraged that what 
has been put in this bill that she did not know about.
  That is the problem that my colleague, the gentleman from California 
[Mr. Dreier], has spoken about, legislating outside of the legislative 
rules of the House in the conference committee. That causes surprises, 
and I am looking here at the Congressional Record. It has pages of 
projects with lots of money involved. If I started reading these, I am 
sure that a lot of Members would be surprised about what is in here, 
and I am sure a lot of Americans would be asking questions about what 
exactly are we doing.
  I think that perhaps the conferees can answer those questions, and 
the appropriations can answer those questions. But when we do it this 
way, we do not know what we are waiving. That is the mistake.
  I want to thank the gentleman from California [Mr. Beilenson], my 
friend, for trying to share with us as complete information as he had 
on this, but even with those extra efforts made by the gentleman from 
California [Mr. Beilenson], we still have not come to a good solution 
on this.
  I think that there is a problem brewing. I think we know about it. We 
can fix it. I hope we will fix it in the Committee on Rules.
  Mr. BEILENSON. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself the balance of my time.
  Mr. Speaker, in concluding, let me say that it is my belief, and the 
belief, I think, of the majority of Members who have listened to this 
debate, both here today and on the floor of the House and also 
yesterday for some period of time in the Committee on Rules that the 
understanding of our colleague, the gentleman from California [Mr. 
Rohrabacher], on the bill is totally and utterly incorrect.
  I refer again to the thoughtful comments of our colleague and friend, 
the gentleman from California [Mr. Berman], who just several minutes 
ago spent some time explaining why in fact that is the case.
  Mr. Speaker, in concluding, let me also remind our colleagues that 
the waivers granted by this rule protect agencies without 
authorization, which I believe the great majority of us strongly and 
fully support, and for several general provisions, most of which have 
been carried for years in previous bills, also protected as they have 
to be this year.
  Mr. Speaker, I urge our colleagues to support this rule so that we 
may proceed to consideration of the conference report.
  Mr. Speaker, I yield back the balance of my time, and I move the 
previous question on the resolution.
  The SPEAKER pro tempore (Mr. Fields of Louisiana). 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. ROHRABACHER. 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.
  Pursuant to the provisions of clause 5 of rule XV, the Chair 
announces that he will reduce to a minimum of 5 minutes the period of 
time within which a vote by electronic device, if ordered, will be 
taken on the question of adoption of the resolution. This is a 15-
minute vote that may be followed by a 5-minute vote.
  The Sergeant at Arms will notify absent Members.
  The vote was taken by electronic device, and there were--yeas 241, 
nays 172, not voting 21, as follows:

                             [Roll No. 406]

                               YEAS--241

     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
     Callahan
     Cantwell
     Cardin
     Carr
     Chapman
     Clay
     Clayton
     Clyburn
     Coleman
     Collins (GA)
     Collins (IL)
     Collins (MI)
     Condit
     Conyers
     Coppersmith
     Costello
     Coyne
     Cramer
     Danner
     Darden
     de la Garza
     DeFazio
     DeLauro
     Dellums
     Derrick
     Deutsch
     Dicks
     Dingell
     Dixon
     Dooley
     Durbin
     Edwards (CA)
     Edwards (TX)
     Engel
     English
     Eshoo
     Evans
     Everett
     Farr
     Fazio
     Fields (LA)
     Filner
     Fingerhut
     Foglietta
     Ford (MI)
     Frank (MA)
     Frost
     Furse
     Gejdenson
     Gephardt
     Geren
     Gibbons
     Glickman
     Gonzalez
     Gordon
     Green
     Gutierrez
     Hall (OH)
     Hall (TX)
     Hamburg
     Hamilton
     Harman
     Hastings
     Hefner
     Hilliard
     Hinchey
     Hoagland
     Hochbrueckner
     Holden
     Hoyer
     Hughes
     Inslee
     Jefferson
     Johnson (GA)
     Johnson (SD)
     Johnson, E. B.
     Johnston
     Kanjorski
     Kaptur
     Kennedy
     Kennelly
     Kildee
     Kleczka
     Kolbe
     Kopetski
     Kreidler
     LaFalce
     Lambert
     Lancaster
     LaRocco
     Laughlin
     Lehman
     Levin
     Lewis (GA)
     Lipinski
     Livingston
     Lloyd
     Long
     Lowey
     Maloney
     Mann
     Manton
     Margolies-Mezvinsky
     Markey
     Martinez
     Matsui
     Mazzoli
     McCloskey
     McDermott
     McHale
     McKinney
     McNulty
     Meehan
     Meek
     Menendez
     Mfume
     Miller (CA)
     Mineta
     Minge
     Mink
     Moakley
     Mollohan
     Montgomery
     Moran
     Morella
     Murphy
     Murtha
     Myers
     Nadler
     Neal (MA)
     Neal (NC)
     Oberstar
     Obey
     Olver
     Ortiz
     Orton
     Pallone
     Parker
     Pastor
     Payne (NJ)
     Payne (VA)
     Pelosi
     Penny
     Peterson (FL)
     Peterson (MN)
     Pickle
     Pomeroy
     Poshard
     Price (NC)
     Rahall
     Reed
     Regula
     Richardson
     Roemer
     Rogers
     Rostenkowski
     Rowland
     Roybal-Allard
     Rush
     Sabo
     Sanders
     Sangmeister
     Sawyer
     Schenk
     Schroeder
     Schumer
     Scott
     Serrano
     Sharp
     Shepherd
     Sisisky
     Skaggs
     Skelton
     Slaughter
     Smith (IA)
     Spratt
     Stark
     Stokes
     Strickland
     Studds
     Stupak
     Swett
     Swift
     Synar
     Tanner
     Tauzin
     Tejeda
     Thompson
     Thornton
     Torres
     Torricelli
     Towns
     Traficant
     Tucker
     Unsoeld
     Valentine
     Velazquez
     Vento
     Visclosky
     Volkmer
     Waters
     Watt
     Waxman
     Wheat
     Whitten
     Williams
     Wilson
     Wise
     Woolsey
     Wyden
     Wynn
     Yates

                               NAYS--172

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

                             NOT VOTING--21

     Becerra
     Clement
     Cooper
     Flake
     Ford (TN)
     Gallo
     Klein
     Klink
     Lantos
     McDade
     Owens
     Pickett
     Rangel
     Reynolds
     Rose
     Skeen
     Slattery
     Smith (MI)
     Sundquist
     Torkildsen
     Washington

                              {time}  1223

  Messrs. JACOBS, BUYER, HAYES, STENHOLM, and McCURDY changed their 
vote from ``yea'' to ``nay.''
  Messrs. CONDIT, RUSH, EVERETT, and INSLEE changed their 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. fields of Louisiana). The question is on 
the resolution.
  The question was taken; and the Speaker pro tempore announced that 
the ayes appeared to have it.
  Mr. DREIER. Mr. Speaker, on that I demand the yeas and nays.
  The yeas and nays were ordered.
  The SPEAKER pro tempore. This will be a 5-minute vote.
  The vote was taken by electronic device, and there were--yeas 235, 
nays 175. not voting 24, as follows:

                             [Roll No. 407]

                               YEAS--235

     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 (FL)
     Brown (OH)
     Bryant
     Byrne
     Cantwell
     Cardin
     Carr
     Chapman
     Clay
     Clayton
     Clinger
     Clyburn
     Coleman
     Collins (IL)
     Collins (MI)
     Condit
     Conyers
     Coppersmith
     Costello
     Coyne
     Cramer
     Danner
     Darden
     de la Garza
     Deal
     DeFazio
     DeLauro
     Dellums
     Derrick
     Dicks
     Dingell
     Dixon
     Dooley
     Durbin
     Edwards (CA)
     Edwards (TX)
     Engel
     English
     Eshoo
     Evans
     Farr
     Fazio
     Fields (LA)
     Filner
     Fingerhut
     Fish
     Foglietta
     Ford (MI)
     Frank (MA)
     Frost
     Gejdenson
     Gephardt
     Geren
     Gibbons
     Glickman
     Gonzalez
     Gordon
     Green
     Gutierrez
     Hall (OH)
     Hall (TX)
     Hamburg
     Hamilton
     Harman
     Hastings
     Hefner
     Hilliard
     Hinchey
     Hoagland
     Hochbrueckner
     Holden
     Hoyer
     Hughes
     Inslee
     Jacobs
     Jefferson
     Johnson (GA)
     Johnson (SD)
     Johnson, E. B.
     Johnston
     Kanjorski
     Kaptur
     Kennedy
     Kennelly
     Kildee
     Kleczka
     Klink
     Kolbe
     Kopetski
     Kreidler
     LaFalce
     Lambert
     Lancaster
     LaRocco
     Laughlin
     Lehman
     Levin
     Lewis (GA)
     Lipinski
     Lloyd
     Long
     Maloney
     Mann
     Manton
     Margolies-Mezvinsky
     Markey
     Martinez
     Matsui
     Mazzoli
     McCloskey
     McDermott
     McHale
     McKinney
     McNulty
     Meehan
     Meek
     Menendez
     Mfume
     Miller (CA)
     Mineta
     Minge
     Mink
     Moakley
     Mollohan
     Montgomery
     Moran
     Morella
     Murphy
     Murtha
     Myers
     Nadler
     Neal (MA)
     Neal (NC)
     Oberstar
     Obey
     Olver
     Ortiz
     Orton
     Pallone
     Parker
     Pastor
     Payne (NJ)
     Payne (VA)
     Pelosi
     Penny
     Peterson (FL)
     Peterson (MN)
     Pickle
     Pomeroy
     Poshard
     Price (NC)
     Rahall
     Rangel
     Reed
     Richardson
     Roemer
     Rogers
     Rostenkowski
     Rowland
     Roybal-Allard
     Rush
     Sabo
     Sanders
     Sangmeister
     Sawyer
     Schenk
     Schroeder
     Schumer
     Scott
     Serrano
     Sharp
     Shepherd
     Sisisky
     Skaggs
     Slaughter
     Smith (IA)
     Spratt
     Stark
     Stokes
     Strickland
     Studds
     Stupak
     Swett
     Swift
     Synar
     Tanner
     Tejeda
     Thompson
     Thornton
     Torres
     Torricelli
     Towns
     Traficant
     Tucker
     Unsoeld
     Velazquez
     Vento
     Visclosky
     Volkmer
     Waters
     Watt
     Waxman
     Wheat
     Whitten
     Williams
     Wilson
     Wise
     Woolsey
     Wyden
     Wynn
     Yates

                               NAYS--175

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

                             NOT VOTING--24

     Becerra
     Clement
     Cooper
     Deutsch
     Flake
     Ford (TN)
     Furse
     Grams
     Johnson (CT)
     Klein
     Lantos
     Livingston
     Lowey
     McDade
     Owens
     Pickett
     Reynolds
     Rose
     Slattery
     Smith (MI)
     Sundquist
     Thomas (WY)
     Valentine
     Washington

                              {time}  1233

  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.

                          ____________________