[Congressional Record Volume 141, Number 24 (Tuesday, February 7, 1995)]
[House]
[Pages H1298-H1302]
From the Congressional Record Online through the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]


ENSURING EXECUTIVE BRANCH ACCOUNTABILITY TO THE HOUSE IN EXPENDITURE OF 
                              PUBLIC MONEY

  Mr. TAYLOR of Mississippi. Mr. Speaker, I offer a privileged 
resolution (H. Res. 57) to preserve the constitutional role of the 
House of Representatives to provide for the expenditure of public money 
and ensure that the executive branch of the U.S. Government remains 
accountable to the House of Representatives for each expenditure of 
public money, and ask for its immediate consideration.
  The Clerk read the resolution, as follows:

                               H. Res. 57

       Whereas rule IX of the Rules of the House of 
     Representatives provides that questions of privilege shall 
     arise whenever the rights of the House collectively are 
     affected;
       Whereas, under the precedents, customs, and traditions of 
     the House pursuant to rule IX, a question of privilege has 
     arisen in cases involving the constitutional prerogatives of 
     the House;
       Whereas section 8 of Article I of the Constitution vests in 
     Congress the power to ``coin money, regulate the value 
     thereof, and of foreign coins'';
       Whereas section 9 of Article I of the Constitution provides 
     that ``no money shall be drawn from the Treasury, but in 
     consequence of appropriations made by law'';
       Whereas the President has recently sought the enactment of 
     legislation to authorize the President to undertake efforts 
     to support economic stability in Mexico and strengthen the 
     Mexican peso;
       Whereas the President announced on January 31, 1995, that 
     actions are being taken to achieve the same result without 
     the enactment of legislation by the Congress;
       Whereas the obligation or expenditure of funds by the 
     President without consideration by the House of 
     Representatives of legislation to make appropriated funds 
     available for obligation or expenditure in the manner 
     proposed by the President raises grave questions concerning 
     the prerogatives of the House and the integrity of the 
     proceedings of the House;
       Whereas the exchange stabilization fund was created by 
     statute to stabilize the exchange value of the dollar and is 
     also required by statute to be used in accordance 
      [[Page H1299]] with the obligations of the United States 
     under the Articles of Agreement of the International Monetary 
     Fund; and
       Whereas the commitment of $20,000,000,000 of the resources 
     of the exchange stabilization fund to Mexico by the President 
     without congressional approval may jeopardize the ability of 
     the fund to fulfill its statutory purposes: Now, therefore, 
     be it
       Resolved, That the Comptroller General of the United States 
     shall prepare and transmit, within 7 days after the adoption 
     of this resolution, a report to the House of Representatives 
     containing the following:
       (1) The opinion of the Comptroller General on whether any 
     of the proposed actions of the President, as announced on 
     January 31, 1995, to strengthen the Mexican peso and support 
     economic stability in Mexico requires congressional 
     authorization or appropriation.
       (2) A detailed evaluation of the terms and conditions of 
     the commitments and agreements entered into by the President, 
     or any officer or employee of the United States acting on 
     behalf of the President, in connection with providing such 
     support, including the terms which provide for collateral or 
     other methods of assuring repayment of any outlays by the 
     United States.
       (3) An analysis of the resources which the International 
     Monetary Fund has agreed to make available to strengthen the 
     Mexican peso and support economic stability in Mexico, 
     including--
       (A) an identification of the percentage of such resources 
     which are attributable to capital contributions by the United 
     States to such Fund; and
       (B) an analysis of the extent to which the Fund's 
     participation in such efforts will likely require additional 
     contributions by member states, including the United States, 
     to the Fund in the future.
       (4) An evaluation of the role played by the Bank for 
     International Settlements in international efforts to 
     strengthen the Mexican peso and support economic stability in 
     Mexico and the extent of the financial exposure of the United 
     States, including the Board of Governors of the Federal 
     Reserve System, with respect to the Bank's activities.
       (5) A detailed analysis of the relationships between the 
     Bank for International Settlements and the Board of Governors 
     of the Federal Reserve System and between the Bank and the 
     Secretary of the Treasury, and the extent to which such 
     relationships involve a financial commitment to the Bank or 
     other members of the Bank, on the part of the United States, 
     of public money or any other financial resources under the 
     control of the Board of Governors of the Federal Reserve 
     System.
       (6) An accounting of fund flows, during the 24 months 
     preceding the date of the adoption of this resolution, 
     through the exchange stabilization fund established under 
     section 5302 of title 31, United States Code, the manner in 
     which amounts in the fund have been used domestically and 
     internationally, and the extent to which the use of such 
     amounts to strengthen the Mexican peso and support economic 
     stability in Mexico represents a departure from the manner in 
     which amounts in the fund have previously been used, 
     including conventional uses such as short-term currency swaps 
     to defend the dollar as compared to intermediate- and long-
     term loans and loan guarantees to foreign countries.
                              {time}  1200

  The SPEAKER. Does the gentleman from Mississippi [Mr. Taylor] wish to 
be heard briefly on whether the resolution constitutes a question of 
privilege?
  Mr. TAYLOR of Mississippi. Yes, Mr. Speaker.
  Mr. Speaker, in the past few days a dozen Members of Congress, 
ranking from people on the ideological right, like the gentleman from 
Kentucky [Mr. Bunning] and the gentleman from California [Mr. Hunter], 
all the way to people on the ideological left, like the gentleman from 
Vermont [Mr. Sanders], have asked the question of whether or not the 
role of Congress has been shortchanged in the decision by the President 
to use this fund to guarantee the loans to Mexico.
  We have come to the conclusion that it is privileged under the Rules 
of the House of Representatives, under rule IX, Questions of Privilege. 
It states, ``Questions of privilege shall be first those affecting the 
House collectively.'' Obviously, the fact that every Member of this 
body was denied a vote on the matter is a matter of the House 
collectively.
  Furthermore, in section 664 of rule IX, entitled ``General 
Principles,'' as to the precedent of questions of privilege, it states 
that ``As the business of the House began to increase, it was found 
necessary to give certain important matters a precedent by rule. Such 
matters were called privileged questions.'' Section 664 goes on and 
says, ``Certain matters of business arising under the Constitution 
mandatory in nature have been held to have a privilege which superseded 
the rules establishing the order of business.''
  One provision of our Nation's Constitution that is most clearly 
mandatory in nature is article I, section 9, clause 7. It states, ``No 
money shall be drawn from the Treasury but in consequence of 
appropriations made by law, and a regular statement and account of the 
receipts and expenditures of all public money shall be published from 
time to time.''
  Mr. Speaker, this Congress cannot stand idly by and avoid our 
constitutional duty, a duty mandatory in nature.
  I request that the Chair rule immediately on this resolution, and in 
making that ruling abide by section 664 of rule IX, General Principles, 
as to precedents of question and privilege.
  Once again, it states that ``Certain matters of business arising 
under the provisions of the Constitution mandatory in nature have been 
held to have a privilege which has superseded the rules establishing 
the order of business.''
  Obviously, 31 U.S.C. 5302 is unconstitutional because it allows the 
executive branch to exercise powers exclusively given to the Congress 
in the Constitution. Therefore, it is a matter which directly affects a 
provision of the Constitution mandatory in nature. This resolution is 
therefore a privileged resolution as defined by rule IX of the House of 
Representatives.
  Mr. Speaker, since there were a dozen cosponsors of this resolution, 
each of us with an equal input, I would like the Chair to oblige those 
other Members who would like to speak on the matter.
  The SPEAKER. The Chair is willing to hear other Members. The Chair 
recognizes the gentlewoman from Ohio [Ms. Kaptur].
  Mrs. KAPTUR. Mr. Speaker, I rise as an original sponsor of this 
legislation and in full support of our bipartisan efforts to get a vote 
on this very serious matter. Our resolution is very straightforward in 
attempting to reassert our rightful authority under the Constitution of 
the United States.
  Our resolution simply requires that the Comptroller General report 
back to the Congress within 7 days, particularly with regard to a 
detailed evaluation of the terms and conditions of the commitments and 
agreements entered into by the President or any officer or employee of 
the United States acting on behalf of the President.
  This is not an insignificant amount of money. From our study of this 
particular section of the law that the President claims he used in 
presenting this particular arrangement for Mexico, never, never in the 
history of the United States has that fund been used to such a large 
extent, over $20 billion, and it appears to be growing as the days go 
on, and never for this particular purpose.
  As one looks down the road at the conditions in Mexico and the fact 
that inflation is out of control----
  The SPEAKER. If the Chair may interrupt, the Chair is recognizing the 
gentlewoman from Ohio for the purpose of explaining why the resolution 
is privileged, not for the purpose of explaining its merits. The only 
question at stake at the moment is whether or not this meets the test 
of being privileged.
  Ms. KAPTUR. Mr. Speaker, let me say, is it the Chair's understanding 
that when any matter comes before the House for a vote, each Member's 
vote has equal value in standing? On any vote we might take?
  The SPEAKER. The Chair will rule presently on the resolution under 
rule IX. The Chair at the moment is simply as a courtesy recognizing 
Members to explain why they believe it is a matter of privilege. The 
Chair will then rule on this resolution fitting into the rules of the 
House.
  Ms. KAPTUR. We believe that this is a question of privilege of the 
House because of the constitutional role of the House of 
Representatives to provide for the expenditure of public money and 
ensure that the executive branch of the U.S. Government remains 
accountable to the House for each such expenditure of public money.
  The gentleman from Mississippi [Mr. Taylor] referenced the section of 
the Constitution, article I, section 9. Let me reference article I, 
section 8 of our Constitution to coin money, regulate the value 
thereof, and of foreign coins. 
 [[Page H1300]] We believe this is a matter that involves every single 
Member of the House of Representatives.
  The SPEAKER. The Chair recognizes the gentleman from Oregon [Mr. 
DeFazio].
  Mr. DeFAZIO. Mr. Speaker, it states, ``Questions of privilege shall 
arise whenever the rights of the House collectively are affected,'' 
and, further to the point, ``No money shall be drawn from the Treasury 
but in consequence of appropriations made by law.''
  The issue is whether or not the authority previously extended by the 
House in a 1933 statute has been exceeded, and if it has been exceeded, 
then certainly the House is collectively affected, and most certainly 
we see a violation of section 9, article I of the Constitution.
  Further, as the Speaker knows, appropriations are to originate in the 
House. In this instance we are dealing with large sums of money to be 
drawn on the U.S. Treasury which have not been appropriated by this 
House. So we feel that it is essential that the House assert its 
prerogative.
  To tell the truth, Mr. Speaker, I do not believe we can come to a 
final and dispositive determination whether or not there is a violation 
of the constitutional prerogatives of the House unless we have these 
questions answered, and unless the resolution goes forward they will 
not be answered.
  The SPEAKER. The Chair recognizes the gentleman from Vermont [Mr. 
Sanders].
  Mr. SANDERS. Mr. Speaker, you and I or the President of the United 
States and I may disagree with the wisdom of the Mexican bailout, but I 
think very clearly the American people are wondering about what is 
happening to our Constitution and to the ability of Members of Congress 
to represent them.
  Mr. Speaker, every single day Members come up here and they question 
this appropriation, whether this $50,000 is well spent, whether this 
$200 million is well spent. It seems to me that the people of Vermont 
and the people all across this country are wondering about the 
Constitution when we are talking about putting at risk $40 billion of 
taxpayers' money without serious discussion and debate on the floor of 
the House.
  It seems to me what the Constitution is about is that if the Members 
of the House and if the Members of the Senate want to approve this $40 
billion bailout, OK. But it is incomprehensible, and it seems to me 
unconstitutional, that that bailout can take place without debate, 
without discussions, and without a vote.
  So, Mr. Speaker, I very much support this privileged resolution, and 
hope that the Members will vote for it.
  The SPEAKER. Having heard now from five Members, the Chair is 
prepared to rule on this. The Chair would first of all point out that 
the question before the House right now is not a matter of the wisdom 
of assistance to Mexico, nor is the question before the House right now 
a question of whether or not the Congress should act, nor is what is 
before the House a question of whether or not this would be an 
appropriate topic for committee hearings, for legislative markup, and 
bills to be reported.
  What is before the House at the moment is a very narrow question of 
whether or not the resolution offered by the gentleman from Mississippi 
[Mr. Taylor] is a question of privilege. On that the Chair is prepared 
to rule.
  The privileges of the House have been held to include questions 
relating to the constitutional prerogatives of the House with respect 
to revenue legislation, clause 1, section 1, article I of the 
Constitution, with respect to impeachment and matters incidental, and 
with respect to matters relating to the return of a bill to the House 
under a Presidential veto.
  Questions of the privileges of the House must meet the standards of 
rule IX. Those standards address privileges of the House as a House, 
not those of Congress as a legislative branch.
                              {time}  1210

  As to whether a question of the privileges of the House may be raised 
simply by invoking one of the legislative powers enumerated in section 
8 of article I of the Constitution or the general legislative ``power 
of the purse'' in the seventh original clause of section 9 of that 
article, the Chair finds helpful guidance in the landmark precedent of 
May 6, 1921, which is recorded in Cannon's Precedents at volume 6, 
section 48. On that occasion, the Speaker was required to decide 
whether a resolution purportedly submitted in compliance with a 
mandatory provision of the Constitution, section 2 of the 14th 
amendment, relating to apportionment, constituted a question of the 
privileges of the House.
  Speaker Gillett held that the resolution did not involve a question 
of privilege. His rationale bears quoting. And I quote.

       This whole question of a constitutional privilege being 
     superior to the rules of the House is a subject which the 
     Chair has for many years considered and thought unreasonable. 
     It seems to the Chair that where the Constitution orders the 
     House to do a thing, the Constitution still gives the House 
     the right to make its own rules and do it at such time and in 
     such manner as it may choose. And it is a strained 
     construction, it seems to the Chair, to say that because the 
     Constitution gives a mandate that a thing shall be done, it 
     therefore follows that any Member can insist that it shall be 
     brought up at some particular time and in the particular way 
     which he chooses.
       If there is a constitutional mandate, the House ought by 
     its rules to provide for the proper enforcement of that 
     mandate, but it is still a question for the House how and 
     when and under what procedure it shall be done. And a 
     constitutional question, like any other, ought to be decided 
     according to the rules that the House has adopted. But there 
     have been a few constitutional questions, very few, which 
     have been held by a series of decisions to be of themselves 
     questions of privilege above the rules of the House. There is 
     the question of the President's veto.
       Another subject which has been given constitutional 
     privilege is impeachment. It has been held that when a Member 
     rises in his place and impeaches an officer of the 
     government, he can claim a constitutional privilege which 
     allows him at any time to push aside the other privileged 
     business of the House.

  Later in the same rule, Speaker Gillett made this observation, again 
I quote:

       But this Rule IX was obviously adopted for the purpose of 
     hindering the extension of constitutional or other privilege. 
     If the question of the census and the question of 
     apportionment were new questions, the Chair would rule that 
     they were not questions of constitutional privilege, because, 
     while of course it is necessary to obey the mandate of the 
     Constitution and take a census every ten years and then make 
     an apportionment, yet there is no reason why it should be 
     done today instead of tomorrow. It seems to the Chair that no 
     one Member ought to have the right to determine when it 
     should come in in preference to the regular rules of the 
     House but that the rules of the House or the majority of the 
     House should decide it. But these questions have been decided 
     to be privileged by a series of decisions, and the Chair 
     recognizes the importance of following precedence in obeying 
     a well-established rule, even if it is unreasonable, that 
     this may be a government of laws and not of men.

  The House Rules and Manual notes that under an earlier practice of 
the House, certain measures responding to mandatory provisions of the 
Constitution were held privileged and allowed to supersede the rules 
establishing the order of business. Examples included the census and 
apportionment measures mentioned by Speaker Gillett. But under later 
decisions, exemplified by Speaker Gillett's in 1921, matters that have 
no other basis in the Constitution or in the rules on which to qualify 
as questions of the privileges of the House have been held not to 
constitute the same. The effect of those decisions has been to require 
that all questions of privilege qualify within the meaning of Rule IX.
  The ordinary rights and functions of the House under the Constitution 
are exercised in accordance with the rules of the House, without 
necessarily being accorded precedence as questions of the privileges of 
the House.
  Consistent with the principles enunciated by Speaker Gillett, the 
House considered in 1941 the joint resolutions to declare war on Japan, 
Germany and Italy by way of motions to suspend the rules. On July
10, 1991, again in consonance with these principles, the House adopted 
a special order of business reported from the Committee on Rules to 
enable its consideration of a concurrent resolution on the need for 
congressional authorization for military action, a concurrent 
resolution on a proposed policy to reverse Iraq's occupation of Kuwait, 
and a joint resolution authorizing military action against Iraq 
  pursuant to a United Nations Security Council Resolution.Finally, the 
Chair observes that in 1973, the House and the Senate, again 
 [[Page H1301]] consistent with Speaker Gillett's rationale, chose to 
exercise their respective constitutional powers to make their own rules 
by including in the War Powers Resolution provisions according 
privilege to specified legislative measures relating to the commitment 
of U.S. Armed Forces to hostilities. It must be noted the procedures 
exist under the rules of the House that enable the House to request or 
compel the executive branch to furnish such information as it may 
require.
  The Chair will continue today to adhere to the same principles 
enunciated by Speaker Gillett. The Chair holds that neither the 
enumeration in the fifth clause of section 8 of article I of the 
Constitution of Congressional Powers ``to coin money, regulate the 
value thereof, and of foreign coins,'' nor the prohibition in the 
seventh original clause of section 9 of that article of any withdrawal 
from the Treasury except by enactment of an appropriation, renders a 
measure purporting to exercise or limit the exercise of those powers a 
question of the privileges of the House.
  The resolution offered by the gentleman from Mississippi recites the 
enumerated powers of Congress relating to the regulation of currency 
and the general legislative ``power of the purse,'' and resolves that 
the Comptroller General conduct a multifaceted evaluation of recent 
actions taken by the President to use the Economic Stabilization Fund 
in support of the currency of Mexico and to report thereon to the 
House.
  It bears repeating that questions of privileges of the House are 
governed by rule IX and that rule IX is not concerned with the 
privileges of the Congress, as a legislative branch, but only with the 
privileges of the House, as a House.
  The Chair holds that the resolution offered by the gentleman from 
Mississippi does not affect ``the rights of the House collectively, its 
safety, dignity, or the integrity of its proceedings'' within the 
meaning of clause 1 of rule IX. Although it may address the aspect of 
legislative power under the Constitution, it does not involve a 
constitutional privilege of the House. Were the Chair to rule 
otherwise, then any alleged infringement by the executive branch, even, 
for example, through the regulatory process, on a legislative power 
conferred on Congress by the Constitution would give rise to a question 
of the privileges of the House. In the words of Speaker Gillett, ``no 
one Member ought to have the right to determine when it should come in 
in preference to the regular rules of the House.''
                        parliamentary inquiries

  Mr. TRAFICANT. Mr. Speaker, I have a parliamentary inquiry.
  The SPEAKER. The chair has ruled that this is not a privileged 
resolution.
  Mr. TRAFICANT. Mr. Speaker, I have a parliamentary inquiry.
  The SPEAKER. The gentleman will state it.
  Mr. TRAFICANT. Mr. Speaker, I would ask that there be a 
reconsideration on the ruling of the Chair, because I believe that the 
precedents so cited do not apply. This is not, in the opinion of the 
drafters, simply to be an infringement by the executive branch.
  The SPEAKER. The gentleman's parliamentary inquiry is moot. The Chair 
has, in fact, ruled that this resolution, as drafted, does not meet the 
procedures required for being a question of privilege and that is based 
upon very thorough study by the Parliamentarian of the precedents of 
the House.
  Mr. TAYLOR of Mississippi. Mr. Speaker, I have a parliamentary 
inquiry.
  The SPEAKER. The gentleman will state it.
  Mr. TAYLOR of Mississippi. Mr. Speaker, since the Speaker has gone to 
great pains to research the precedents of the House, I would like to 
point out to the Speaker that in the past whether or not the ceiling 
tiles were properly affixed to the ceiling of this Chamber has been 
ruled as a privileged resolution.
  The SPEAKER. The Chair would respond to the gentleman from 
Mississippi, that relates directly to the safety of the House.
  Mr. TAYLOR of Mississippi. Mr. Speaker, I would also like to point 
out that the original custom of this body was to present any question 
of a privilege of the House to the Members and let the Members decide 
whether they felt it was a privilege of the House that was being 
violated. Is the Speaker willing to grant the Members of this House 
that same privilege?
  The SPEAKER. The Chair would simply note that the Chair is following 
precedent as has been established over the last 70 years and that that 
precedent seems to be more than adequate. And in that context, the 
Chair has ruled this does not meet the test for a question of 
privilege.
  Mr. TAYLOR of Mississippi. Mr. Speaker, a further parliamentary 
inquiry: What is the procedure for----
  The SPEAKER. The only appropriate procedure, if the gentleman feels 
that the precedents are wrong, would be to appeal the ruling of the 
Chair and allow the House to decide whether or not to set a new 
precedent by overruling the Speaker.
                              {time}  1220

  Mr. TAYLOR of Mississippi. Mr. Speaker, I appeal the ruling of the 
Chair, and I would like Members of Congress to be granted the 1 hour 
that the House rules allow for to speak on this matter.


                preferential motion offered by mr. armey

  Mr. ARMEY. Mr. Speaker, I offer a preferential motion.
  The SPEAKER. The Clerk will report the preferential motion.
  The Clerk read as follows:

       Mr. Armey moves to lay on the table the appeal of the 
     ruling of the Chair.


                         parliamentary inquiry

  Ms. KAPTUR. I have a parliamentary inquiry, Mr. Speaker.
  The SPEAKER. The gentlewoman will state the parliamentary inquiry.
  Ms. KAPTUR. Mr. Speaker, am I correct in understanding that the 
motion to table this appeal is not debatable?
  The SPEAKER. The gentlewoman is correct.
  Ms. KAPTUR. And thus, Mr. Speaker, Members of Congress will be 
deprived by this vote without any type of a debate on the authority 
vested in our constitutional rights to vote on this issue?
  The SPEAKER. The Chair would say to the gentlewoman that the motion 
is not debatable.
  The question is on the preferential motion offered by the gentleman 
from Texas [Mr. Armey].
  The question was taken; and the Speaker announced that the ``ayes'' 
appeared to have it.
  Mr. TAYLOR of Mississippi. 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. Evidently a quorum is not present.
  The Sergeant at Arms will notify absent Members.
  This vote will be 17 minutes total.
  The vote was taken by electronic device, and there were--yeas 288, 
nays 143, not voting 3, as follows:
                             [Roll No. 96]

                               YEAS--288

     Allard
     Archer
     Armey
     Bachus
     Baker (CA)
     Baker (LA)
     Baldacci
     Ballenger
     Barr
     Barrett (NE)
     Bartlett
     Barton
     Bass
     Bateman
     Becerra
     Beilenson
     Bentsen
     Bereuter
     Berman
     Bilirakis
     Bliley
     Blute
     Boehlert
     Boehner
     Bonilla
     Bonior
     Bono
     Boucher
     Brownback
     Bryant (TN)
     Bunn
     Bunning
     Burr
     Burton
     Buyer
     Callahan
     Calvert
     Camp
     Canady
     Cardin
     Castle
     Chabot
     Chambliss
     Chenoweth
     Christensen
     Chrysler
     Clinger
     Coburn
     Coleman
     Collins (GA)
     Combest
     Cooley
     Cox
     Crane
     Crapo
     Cremeans
     Cubin
     Cunningham
     Davis
     de la Garza
     DeLauro
     DeLay
     Diaz-Balart
     Dickey
     Dicks
     Dixon
     Doggett
     Dooley
     Doolittle
     Dreier
     Dunn
     Edwards
     Ehlers
     Ehrlich
     Emerson
     Ensign
     Everett
     Ewing
     Fawell
     Fazio
     Fields (TX)
     Flake
     Flanagan
     Foglietta
     Foley
     Forbes
     Ford
     Fowler
     Fox
     Frank (MA)
     Franks (CT)
     Franks (NJ)
     Frelinghuysen
     Frisa
     Funderburk
     Gallegly
     Ganske
     Gejdenson
     Gekas
     Gephardt
     Geren
     Gilchrest
     Gillmor
     Gilman
     Goodlatte
     Goodling
     Goss
     Graham
     Green
     Greenwood
     Gunderson
     Gutierrez
     Gutknecht
     Hamilton
     Hancock
     Hansen
     Hastert
     Hastings (WA)
     Hayworth
     Hefley
     Heineman
     Herger
     Hilleary
     Hobson
     Hoekstra
     Hoke
     Horn
     Hostettler
     Houghton
     Hutchinson
     Hyde
     Inglis
     Jackson-Lee
     Jefferson
     Johnson (CT)
     [[Page H1302]] Johnson, Sam
     Johnston
     Jones
     Kasich
     Kelly
     Kennedy (MA)
     Kennelly
     Kim
     King
     Kingston
     Knollenberg
     Kolbe
     LaFalce
     LaHood
     Latham
     LaTourette
     Laughlin
     Lazio
     Leach
     Levin
     Lewis (CA)
     Lewis (GA)
     Lewis (KY)
     Lightfoot
     Linder
     Livingston
     LoBiondo
     Longley
     Lucas
     Maloney
     Manton
     Manzullo
     Markey
     Martini
     Matsui
     McCarthy
     McCollum
     McCrery
     McDade
     McHugh
     McInnis
     McIntosh
     McKeon
     Meehan
     Metcalf
     Meyers
     Mfume
     Mica
     Miller (FL)
     Mineta
     Moakley
     Molinari
     Moorhead
     Moran
     Morella
     Myrick
     Neal
     Nethercutt
     Neumann
     Ney
     Norwood
     Nussle
     Olver
     Ortiz
     Oxley
     Packard
     Pastor
     Paxon
     Payne (VA)
     Pelosi
     Petri
     Pickett
     Pombo
     Porter
     Portman
     Pryce
     Quillen
     Quinn
     Radanovich
     Ramstad
     Regula
     Reynolds
     Richardson
     Riggs
     Roberts
     Rogers
     Ros-Lehtinen
     Roth
     Roukema
     Roybal-Allard
     Royce
     Rush
     Salmon
     Sanford
     Sawyer
     Saxton
     Scarborough
     Schaefer
     Schiff
     Schumer
     Seastrand
     Sensenbrenner
     Serrano
     Shadegg
     Shaw
     Shays
     Shuster
     Skaggs
     Skeen
     Skelton
     Smith (MI)
     Smith (NJ)
     Smith (TX)
     Smith (WA)
     Solomon
     Souder
     Spence
     Stenholm
     Stockman
     Studds
     Stump
     Talent
     Tate
     Tejeda
     Thomas
     Thornberry
     Thornton
     Tiahrt
     Torkildsen
     Torres
     Torricelli
     Upton
     Vento
     Volkmer
     Vucanovich
     Waldholtz
     Walker
     Walsh
     Wamp
     Ward
     Waters
     Watts (OK)
     Waxman
     Weldon (FL)
     Weller
     White
     Wicker
     Williams
     Wolf
     Young (AK)
     Young (FL)
     Zeliff
     Zimmer

                               NAYS--143

     Abercrombie
     Ackerman
     Andrews
     Baesler
     Barcia
     Barrett (WI)
     Bevill
     Bilbray
     Bishop
     Borski
     Brewster
     Browder
     Brown (CA)
     Brown (FL)
     Brown (OH)
     Bryant (TX)
     Chapman
     Clay
     Clayton
     Clement
     Clyburn
     Coble
     Collins (IL)
     Collins (MI)
     Condit
     Conyers
     Costello
     Coyne
     Cramer
     Danner
     Deal
     DeFazio
     Dellums
     Deutsch
     Dingell
     Doyle
     Duncan
     Durbin
     Engel
     English
     Eshoo
     Evans
     Farr
     Fattah
     Fields (LA)
     Filner
     Furse
     Gibbons
     Gonzalez
     Gordon
     Hall (OH)
     Hall (TX)
     Harman
     Hastings (FL)
     Hayes
     Hefner
     Hilliard
     Hinchey
     Holden
     Hoyer
     Hunter
     Istook
     Jacobs
     Johnson (SD)
     Johnson, E. B.
     Kanjorski
     Kaptur
     Kennedy (RI)
     Kildee
     Kleczka
     Klink
     Klug
     Lantos
     Largent
     Lincoln
     Lipinski
     Lofgren
     Lowey
     Luther
     Martinez
     Mascara
     McDermott
     McHale
     McKinney
     McNulty
     Meek
     Menendez
     Miller (CA)
     Minge
     Mink
     Mollohan
     Montgomery
     Murtha
     Myers
     Nadler
     Oberstar
     Obey
     Orton
     Owens
     Pallone
     Parker
     Payne (NJ)
     Peterson (FL)
     Peterson (MN)
     Pomeroy
     Poshard
     Rahall
     Rangel
     Reed
     Rivers
     Roemer
     Rohrabacher
     Rose
     Sabo
     Sanders
     Schroeder
     Scott
     Sisisky
     Slaughter
     Spratt
     Stark
     Stearns
     Stokes
     Stupak
     Tanner
     Tauzin
     Taylor (MS)
     Taylor (NC)
     Thompson
     Thurman
     Towns
     Traficant
     Tucker
     Velazquez
     Visclosky
     Watt (NC)
     Weldon (PA)
     Whitfield
     Wilson
     Wise
     Woolsey
     Wyden
     Wynn

                             NOT VOTING--3

     Dornan
     Frost
     Yates

                              {time}  1240

  Messrs. SPRATT, SABO, MASCARA, and WYNN, Ms. WOOLSEY, and Mr. COYNE 
changed their vote from ``yea'' to ``nay.''
  Messrs. HOEKSTRA, EWING, TIAHRT, HEINEMAN, JONES, DICKEY, FUNDERBURK, 
KENNEDY of Massachusetts, and OLVER, Ms. ROYBAL-ALLARD, Mrs. SMITH of 
Washington, Mr. TORRES, and Mr. SANFORD changed their vote from ``nay'' 
to ``yea.''
  So the motion to lay on the table the appeal of the ruling of the 
Chair was agreed to.
  The result of the vote was announced as above recorded.
  A motion to reconsider was laid on the table.
  

                          ____________________