[Congressional Record Volume 141, Number 28 (Monday, February 13, 1995)]
[House]
[Pages H1672-H1677]
From the Congressional Record Online through the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
PERMISSION FOR ALL COMMITTEES AND SUBCOMMITTEES TO SIT ON TOMORROW AND
THE BALANCE OF THE WEEK DURING THE 5-MINUTE RULE
Mr. ARMEY. Mr. Speaker, I offer a motion.
The SPEAKER pro tempore. The Clerk will report the motion.
The Clerk read as follows:
Mr. Armey moves: that all Committees of the House and their
subcommittees have permission to sit tomorrow, February 14,
and for the balance of the week while the House is meeting
under the five-minute rule.
The SPEAKER pro tempore. The gentleman from Texas [Mr. Armey] is
recognized for 1 hour.
Mr. ARMEY. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself 5 minutes.
I do not intend to take the full hour allotted to me.
Mr. Speaker, before I yield to my friend, the gentleman from Michigan
[Mr. Bonior], I would say that the hour is late, and I hope we will be
able to adjourn shortly.
In the meantime, all Members should be advised that we are very
likely to have one more vote before this evening is over.
Mr. Speaker, I yield 30 minutes to the gentleman from Michigan [Mr.
Bonior], and I reserve the balance of my time.
Mr. BONIOR. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume.
Mr. Speaker, the Committee on Rules today approved an outrageous gag
rule for the National Security Act. It cuts off debate. It blocks
important amendments.
Mr. ARMEY. Mr. Speaker, will the gentleman yield?
Mr. BONIOR. I yield to the gentleman from Texas.
Mr. ARMEY. Mr. Speaker, to be clear for the Record, I yielded this
time to the gentleman from Michigan for purposes of debate only.
Mr. SABO. Mr. Speaker, I reserve the right to object.
The SPEAKER pro tempore. The gentleman from Texas [Mr. Armey] has
yielded for purposes of debate only. There is nothing to object to at
this point.
Mr. SABO. Mr. Speaker, I think the gentleman yielded 30 minutes
without reservations.
The SPEAKER pro tempore. The gentleman from Texas [Mr. Armey]
clarified his yielding, and this is for purposes of debate only.
The Chair recognizes the gentleman from Michigan [Mr. Bonior].
{time} 2120
Mr. BONIOR. Mr. Speaker, this rule that was put out this afternoon by
the Republican leadership on the Committee on Rules is a gag rule for
our National Security Act. It cuts off debate, it blocks important
amendments, and it does so under a 10-hour time limit.
Mr. Speaker, this legislation is too important. It is one of the most
important pieces of legislation we will consider in this session of
Congress or in this Congress.
The Republicans want to completely rewrite the foreign policy of the
United States in 10 hours. They want to reconstruct the entire defense
policy and return to the days of star wars in 10 hours. They want to
restrict the military's ability to respond to emergencies around the
world in 10 hours. They want to completely rethink our relationship
with our NATO allies in 10 hours.
Mr. Speaker, this does not make any sense. We have tried throughout
the day to negotiate without colleagues on this side of the aisle to
give us adequate debate so we can take on these important issues which
affect the national security of our country in a reasonable amount of
time where Members of this floor can get up and express themselves with
amendments that make sense for this country. And we find ourselves in a
situation tonight where we have to object.
Mr. Speaker, this is one of the most important pieces of foreign
policy legislation to be considered by Congress in years.
Mr. Speaker, if you talk to the distinguished ranking Members on our
side of the aisle, the gentleman from Indiana [Mr. Hamilton], the
gentleman from California [Mr. Dellums], and others who have labored in
these areas for years and decades, they will tell you it is an outrage
we are going to consider this piece of legislation for only 10 hours.
Why do my Republican colleagues feel that they need to rush this bill
through without adequate debate, without an opportunity for Members to
offer amendments? I will tell you why. Because they want to punch
another little hole in their Contract With America. They want to check
off another item on the list.
Well, Mr. Speaker, you do not write good laws by punching little
cards, and you do not write good laws by rushing to judgment on issues
that concern the national security of this country.
That is not the way to protect this Nation. We ask for a reasonable
amount of time, and we have been told 10 hours is all you are going to
get, for foreign policy, for defense policy, for policy that deals with
our most important allies in the North Atlantic Treaty Organization.
It just will not do. You could spend 10 hours on the debate alone
between troop readiness and star wars, which is a piece of the debate
we are about to have in this bill as we approach it in the next couple
of days.
So, Mr. Speaker, I want to say as strongly as I can on behalf of
myself and the rest of the Democratic leadership, we feel this is an
injustice and we will not stand for it, and we want to make our voices
heard this evening on this issue.
Mr. Speaker, I yield such time as he may consume to my dear
colleague, the gentleman from Massachusetts [Mr. Frank].
Mr. FRANK of Massachusetts. Mr. Speaker, this urge to measure
legislation by sheer volume of bills passed has really now come up
against reality. This 10-hour limitation was perfectly sensible for
some of the bills we have been doing this week. They were single issue
bills. We did 10 hours on prisons, 10 hours on the prevention police.
We bump up against it a little bit, but they are reasonable.
This 10-hour model now is applying to an omnibus bill that takes in
vast areas of national security, of foreign policy, and of defense.
Remember out of the 10 hours comes rollcalls. If you have four or five
rollcalls, you have eaten up a couple of hours by the amount of time
they will take. We will debate what our relationship should be with
NATO, what new nations will come into NATO, do we go back to star wars,
what is our relationship to peacekeeping, what are our requirements
when the United States participates in multinational peacekeeping, all
in 10 hours.
By the way, the hard working majority plans to leave town at 3
o'clock on Thursday. This is 10 hours compressing the most important
issues this Nation faces, so we can get out of town early.
Well, let us wait until next week, if the vacation is irresistible.
Frankly, for those who are prepared simply to take marching and voting
orders, 10
[[Page H1673]] hours may be OK. If you have checked your independent
thought processes at the door and are ready to walk in here and be told
what to do, I suppose 10 minutes would probably do it, if you can check
them off like that.
But those of us who think this country is entitled to serious
discussion of these issues understand, 10 hours is the most debasing
and degrading approach to the legislative process I have ever seen,
particularly when it is for the convenience of an early vacation.
One of the issues that I was hoping we would raise, and I have talked
to Members on the other side, is burden sharing, which this House
forced on the administration. It is bipartisan, the opposition to
burden sharing. Republican and Democratic Presidents alike have
resisted it, and we insisted on it. We cannot adequately do that in 10
hours.
Mr. Speaker, we cannot deal with this large range of issues that have
been put together. If you are, in fact, prepared simply to do as you
are told, if you have presigned on and do not need to think about it,
OK. But the notion that in 10 hours, with time out
for votes, you can redefine our relationships to the United Nations
and NATO, reconstruct our defense command structure, redefine the
powers of the President, all within a 10-hour period, which will
include general debate, which will include time for the rules, it is a
degradation of the legislative process.
By the way, once again we are being told that one of the reforms the
Republicans brought to us gets checked at the door. One of the great
reforms was the reinstitution of the rule that said we will not have
you on the floor when the committees are meeting. They apparently put
that reform in so they could waive it every week. They have waived that
rule more than they have waived the contract. That rule has been
dispensed with virtually every week, so that Members will be expected
to be on the floor and deal with the questions of NATO and SDI, et
cetera, and at the same time simultaneously be in committees.
Mr. Speaker, this is taking the legislative process hostage so you
can fulfill a political promise that turned out to be more difficult
than you thought. No one would describe 10 hours as remotely adequate
to deal with these very important issues. What the majority is trying
to do is to cram into an obviously inadequate period of time a series
of difficult issues, and in part, because this one is beginning to
unravel. This one is beginning to engender opposition from Republicans
who have served in high defense and national security positions.
The implications of this one will not bear scrutiny. Ten hours of
debate is absolutely a breach of faith with the Democratic process and
it will engender, I believe on our side, an appropriate response.
People who tell us that we cannot take adequate time to deal with these
issues cannot expect to be treated by us as partners in the ongoing
legislative process when they have so dishonored it.
Mr. BONIOR. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume.
Mr. Speaker, just so the newer Members on the other side of the aisle
and on this side of the aisle understand historically what has happened
on defense security issues, when we have had defense bills before this
body, defense authorization bills, over the last several years, we have
spent up to 2 weeks on those bills. We have had over 200 amendments
submitted to the Committee on Rules, and we have considered 50 to 100
amendments on the House floor.
What you are doing to us now is allowing no more than three or four
amendments to be considered, and that only in a limited amount of time.
You are shutting off debate on such important issues as the gentleman
from Massachusetts pointed out on burden sharing, which will require
our allies to share some of the defense burden that we have picked up
for so long.
That is not a fair way to do business. It is not a fair way to do
business. And what will you have gained by all this? Do you think the
other body, for all its faults, and it has faults, is going to stand by
and let this happen? Do you think they are going to take your product
of 10 hours and process it and deliver it to the President?
Nonsense. Nonsense. They are going to talk about NATO and give it the
time that it deserves, and it is going to be your Republican colleagues
and Senators in the other body who will lead the way on that. And they
will do the same thing. They will talk about the defense issues and the
security issues that we brought to you this evening.
So we are terribly upset about this, as you can obviously see, and we
will be raising our voices today, tomorrow, and the next day to make
sure that we get some justice and some due time.
Mr. Speaker, I yield to the gentleman from Minnesota [Mr. Sabo].
{time} 2130
Mr. SABO. Mr. Speaker, I am just curious, NATO has been rather
important to this country for 45 years, almost 50 years. Were there
extensive hearings in committee as we write new law to change that
historic relationship?
Mr. BONIOR. Mr. Speaker, will the gentleman yield?
Mr. SABO. I yield to the gentleman from Michigan.
Mr. BONIOR. Mr. Speaker, my friend from Minnesota, as I understand
it, there were 3 half-day hearings to consider the defense, foreign
policy issues and intelligence issues that are in this bill, 3 half-day
hearings.
Mr. SABO. So it is not only a limited amendment, but it is something
that sort of rushed through committee that is changing this historic
relationship that our country has had with our allies?
Mr. BONIOR. Well, basically the whole contract has been rushed
through. But we understand some of the concerns on the other side of
the aisle over some of the issues that my friend from Massachusetts
raised. They could be debated within a framework of a few hours or 5
hours or 6 hours. But we are talking about the national security of the
American public and of this country. We cannot do that in 10 hours.
Mr. BONIOR. Mr. Speaker, I yield 3 minutes to the distinguished
gentleman from Illinois [Mr. Durbin].
Mr. DURBIN. I would like to ask my colleagues to consider for a
moment what we are about here this evening.
This bill, H.R. 7, addresses many important topics. We have spent
about $30 billion on star wars. There is a serious question of how much
we should spend and whether we would do that and sacrifice the
readiness of America's Armed Forces. That is worthy of a debate that
all Members should be involved in.
There is also a question in this bill as to the role of Commander in
Chief of the United States. Over the 12 years that I have served in
this body, I can remember many, many times when we have taken days and
often weeks to debate the application of that constitutional provision
in terms of the security of the United States.
There are questions in this bill as well about the future of NATO.
And it has been alluded to here that this is one seminal debate on our
new relationship in this so-called new world order.
I might say to my colleagues that they may dismiss this as just
another check mark on the TV Guide ad. It is much more than that to a
lot of different people.
During the last week or two, since the 3 half-days of debate on this
bill, I have had people come to me, Americans, who have friends and
relatives who live in parts of the world who have traditionally been
our allies, genuinely concerned about the impact of this bill on the
future security of these nations.
Finally, of course, this bill addresses peacekeeping, and that, my
colleagues, literally addresses life and death issues for America's
young men and women.
That is how serious this bill is. I know there is a strong partisan
feeling on this floor, and I have seen it manifest many times on both
sides of the aisle over the years. But I would like to address this
comment to the new Members on both sides of the aisle.
Many of my colleagues did not serve, and probably did not witness,
one of the most important debates in the history of this institution. I
was privileged enough to be here for that debate. It was the debate
over the entry of the United States into the Persian Gulf war.
A decision was made by the leadership of the House that this issue
was so critically important, involving the life and death of American
citizens, that if necessary we would stay in session around the clock
so that every Member would be able to express their heartfelt
[[Page H1674]] feelings. When it was over and the debate ended, most
people credited that debate as one of our finest hours in the House of
Representatives.
We took the time to do it right, because the issue was so important.
I beg my colleagues now, we would not do it this evening, but
tomorrow, when Members meet with their Republican leaders, ask them to
pause and give some consideration to the fact that this, too, is a life
or death issue. We owe the people we represent the time to sit down,
deliberate, and make the right decision.
I hope that my colleagues will prevail on the Committee on Rules and
their leadership to give us the time to adequately address these
critically important issues.
Mr. BONIOR. Mr. Speaker, I yield 3 minutes to the distinguished
gentleman from West Virginia [Mr. Wise].
Mr. WISE. Mr. Speaker, there is a saying that Rome was not built in a
single day, only the Republican majority, though, could think they can
build the entire U.S. relationship with the world in 10 hours.
What we are debating, will be debating in that brief period of time,
ranges literally the world. It is what our sons and daughters do in the
Armed Forces. It is what the role of the Armed Forces is. It is, what
role does the United Nations have. What about burden sharing, our
relationship with many other parts of the world.
I cannot believe that anyone seriously want to spend just 10 hours on
it. I understand there is a contract. But does that contract really go
further than the water's edge in terms of our national security?
Members can say that, ``No, Bob, we don't limit you. It is an open
rule in the sense of you can offer any amendment you can.''
But what has happened, Mr. Speaker, is that they have limited the
time. And when they limit the time and add in to that the debate or the
vote time, what they do is they do limit amendments. And by adding in
the time to actually come over and vote, what they have done is forced
Members to decide, do I debate or do I vote? Do I ask for a vote on
some of these crucial, crucial issues?
I guess what concerns me, Mr. Speaker, is that under this rule, as I
understand it, it will be 10 hours to debate this entire bill. The
Republican majority is going to spend less time debating this bill than
it actually will take to fly to some of these countries one day to see
what their concerns really are. Indeed, if a congressional delegation's
flight time was measured by these bills, these planes would not be able
to make it past Hawaii as we explore Asia or other parts of far distant
Europe.
I would just urge, Mr. Speaker, for Members to think about this
overnight. I do not pretend to be a very senior Member around here, but
I remember on some of the military bills and armed services bills,
spending 30 or 40 hours because Members thought it was that important.
Incidentally, 30 or 40 hours basically taking up amendments from the
other side, from this Republican side of the aisle.
I would urge Members to reconsider this and the Committee on Rules to
reconsider this. Surely, our country's national security deserves more
than 10 hours debate with vote time included.
Mr. BONIOR. Mr. Speaker, I yield 3 minutes to the distinguished
gentleman from North Carolina [Mr. Watt].
Mr. WATT of North Carolina. Mr. Speaker, since very early in this
session of Congress, I have been addressing on a number of occasions
the process by which we deliberate and consider laws for this country.
I debated and took issue with the cutting off of debate on an
important bill in the Committee on the Judiciary. I have debated on a
number of occasions on this floor the process by which we consider
issues. It seems to me that we have now gotten to the point where it is
not the process of debate or the process for reaching a reasonable
result that is at issue but simply reaching that result because some
Contract With America or contract on America was made with the people.
Our primary obligation, Mr. Speaker, is to deliberate and study the
issues that come before us and to debate those issues for the American
people. The value of this body is the diversity that we bring to this
body and the ability to hear the various perspectives of people from
throughout this Nation that 435 Representatives bring here and offer in
the debate.
{time} 2140
If there is not sufficient time to debate, then that diversity cannot
be honored.
Mr. Speaker, I call on my colleagues to reconsider this issue. Give
us ample time to debate it. Do not tell the American people on one hand
that we are opening up the process and having a deliberative form of
government, that we are going to have 10 hours of debate while we count
the voting time, 15 minutes for each vote, so if we offer 10
amendments, more than 2\1/2\ hours will be gone just in the amendment
and voting process. Let us be honest with the American people, and if
we are going to tell them that we believe in an open society, believe
in open debate, let us demonstrate it here on the floor of the House
and have open debate, and have unlimited time for the debate of these
issues.
Mr. BONIOR. Mr. speaker, I yield 3 minutes to the gentlewoman from
Colorado [Mrs. Schroeder].
Mrs. SCHROEDER. Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentleman for yielding time
to me.
Mr. Speaker, I take the well not because I want to delay our
departure, but because I think what we are doing with H.R. 7 is we are
engaging in playing politics with one of the most important jobs we
have here. That is measuring what we think is needed for the national
security of our country and for our leadership in this new and evolving
world that is so difficult for all of us to understand.
Mr. Speaker, what are we doing in this bill? Think about this. We are
communicating to the rest of the world that we are not going to play in
the United Nations anymore, we do not like the way it is run, so forget
the humanitarian missions, the Americans will not be there. Boy, there
is a heavy message.
We are also saying, ``We are going to tell them which countries ought
to come into NATO.'' Mr. Speaker, any country that is in NATO as a full
member means that we are committed to defend their security, so if
Chechnya had been allowed into NATO we would now have troops over there
fighting. Now maybe that is a good idea, but do we do that with 10
hours of debate? Do we do that without consulting our allies? Do we
have any idea that the United Nations and NATO are bodies that have
other countries that belong, and they think they should have some input
in this, too, and the administration should?
Mr. Speaker, we are also taking and giving the Pentagon a nanny. We
are giving them a commission, a political commission. We are
politicizing all of this. Mr. Speaker, that is real smart. That is what
we need, are more layers, more layers, and we are going to do that in
the 10 hours.
When we look at the commitments we are making budgetarily, Mr.
Speaker, we are committing to a space-based defense: bring back star
wars for nostalgia's sake. There is applause over there, they cannot
wait. The guess is going to be that is $40 billion for the opening
shot, and heaven only knows where it goes and if it will ever work, at
a time when readiness is a much more critical concern, I think, and
when, if we look at the real fear, it is the fact that somebody could
bring nuclear weapons in and do another World Trade Center.
Mr. Speaker, I do not know what space-based defense is going to do
against a world issue. I know it is funny, and I know that people
think, ``Let's just hurry on and punch this hole in the contract,'' but
I think the rest of the world is going to look over here and say,
``What is going on?'' I must say as a Member who has been here a while,
Mr. Speaker, if we as Democrats had ever done this, the other side of
the aisle would have gone crazy, to come in here and say we are going
to redo all of the U.N. stuff, we are going to redo NATO, we are going
to not deal with burdensharing, we will keep being the policeman of the
world, we are going to run everything, we are going to do star wars, we
are going to do it in 10 hours, and we are going to put a politicized
commission running
[[Page H1675]] the Pentagon. This is an absolute outrage. I really hope
people think about this.
Mr. BONIOR. Mr. Speaker, I yield 3 minutes to the distinguished
gentleman from Texas [Mr. Edwards].
Mr. EDWARDS. Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentleman for yielding the time
to me.
I know the hour is late, but I happen to represent over 40,000 Army
soldiers at Fort Hood, TX. I do not come to this floor often. If
Members will look at my record over 4 years, I seldom come this floor
in a partisan manner.
However, Mr. Speaker, I come to the floor at this late hour in saying
to my colleagues that this is an important issue. We ought to look
beyond partisanship in deciding how much time is it worth for us to
debate our national security issues.
I am a hawk on defense, Mr. Speaker. I believe we ought to spend more
on defense. If I could get to the right of the gentleman from Texas,
Charlie Wilson, on defense, I would do it. I believe national defense,
along with many of my colleagues, is the single most important
responsibility of the Federal Government, and it deserves more than 10
hours of debate.
If it does not deserve it, Mr. Speaker, then certainly the lives of
our men and women in the Services deserve it. How much is the life an
one Army soldier worth? 10 Hours? How much is the life of one Marine
worth? 10 hours? How much is the life of thousands and thousands of
American servicemen and women worth? Certainly it should be worth more
than 10 hours.
Mr. Speaker, I would just suggest that the Contract that we sign as
Members of Congress to try to protect the lives of the men and women
brave enough to put their lives on the line for us, that that contract
is more important than the time schedule of a Contract for America.
Mr. BONIOR. Mr. Speaker, I yield 3 minutes to the gentleman from
Massachusetts [Mr. Moakley], the distinguished ranking member of the
Committee on Rules.
Mr. MOAKLEY. Mr. Speaker, I thank the minority whip for yielding time
to me.
Mr. Speaker, one of the greatest surprises I have had since I have
been on the Committee on Rules was today, when I was told about this
other contract that the Republican party had come up with.
We are not talking this bill up until Wednesday. I asked what the
purpose was of not giving us at least 24 hours, to go around the clock,
to bring these amendments forward, because it deals with three very
heavy subject matters.
I am sure that Star Wars sticks in some people's throat when they
talk about it. Probably the quicker they get through speaking about it,
the better they will feel. However, when we are talking about an item
that can go up to $46 billion, and the Republicans can spend hours in
the Committee on Rules on bills that we sent on the suspension
calendar, when they can break the police bill up into 8 hours, and yet,
give less than 12 hours on something as important as this, because they
have to know what their schedule is, well, I told them they do not have
to know what their schedule is. They have the votes, they can vote it.
However, I think this is one of the votes that the Republican Party
will never forget. This is a very giant vote. It is something I have
never seen in all my time on the Committee on Rules. We used to get
accused of gagging people, but on this one, they have a tourniquet
right around all our necks.
They just do not want to allow anybody, and they think it is funny
over there, Mr. Speaker, but I would like to see this appear in every
one of their newspapers, on how little they care for the defense of our
country when it come to intelligence, when it comes to star wars, when
it comes to other matters contained in this bill; the bailout.
Mr. Speaker, this is a sad day in this country. The desert war was a
great day, when it was a wide open rule, anybody could speak.
Maybe I should not have said that, because every day the term ``open
rule'' gets changed. I am waiting for the new Republican dictionary to
hit my desk, so I really know what they mean by an open rule.
Mr. Speaker, they accused us of violating the open rules, and it was
a difficult description of what they now say is an open rule. I would
hope, Mr. Speaker, that people over there, first-termers, at least,
will take a very close look at this, because as I said, this is going
to come back to haunt all of them.
{time} 2150
The SPEAKER pro tempore (Mr. Bonilla). The gentleman is advised that
he has 1\1/2\ minutes remaining.
Mr. BONIOR. May I ask how much time, Mr. Speaker, the gentleman from
Texas has?
The SPEAKER pro tempore. The gentleman from Texas has 29 minutes
remaining.
Mr. BONIOR. Does the gentleman wish to use any of his time?
Mr. Speaker, I yield myself the balance of the time.
Let me be very clear that the majority does not wish to respond to
our concerns and requests this evening.
Let me just close by suggesting to all of us here this evening that
when it comes to our national defense, there really is no time limit,
and what we are about to do this Wednesday and Thursday is to gag this
institution in a way that frankly I have not seen in a long time.
As I said earlier, Mr. Speaker, and the gentleman from New York knows
full well what I am speaking about. When we had a national defense bill
on this floor, the gentleman from California [Mr. Dellums] spent a full
2 weeks each and every time he would bring it to the floor. Amendments
were made in order so all Members of this body had an opportunity to
participate in a free and a fair way. We are not having that now. We
are dealing with the most important and crucial issues that will face
this institution and this body in this Congress, the defense of this
Nation, the safety of our young men and women who are defending this
country.
When you talk about peacekeeping, when you talk about Haiti or Bosnia
or the Middle East or Somalia, you are talking about whether or not we
are going to have peace or we are going to have war. And 10 hours is
not enough time. There is no time limit on our national defense.
Mr. Speaker, I yield back the balance of my time.
Mr. ARMEY. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I shall use.
Mr. Speaker, let me remind the body that the motion before the House
is that all committees of the House and their subcommittees have
permission to sit tomorrow, February 14 and for the balance of the week
while the House is meeting under the 5-minute rule.
Mr. Speaker, we have worked hard since January 4 and we have already
accomplished a great deal. House Republicans have applied the laws of
the land to a Congress which for years saw fit to exempt itself from
what it imposed upon others.
With bipartisan support House Republicans brought up and passed a
balanced budget amendment to the Constitution. With bipartisan support
we passed legislation ending unfunded mandates, and we have already
passed wide-ranging crime legislation including strong and effective
death penalty legislation.
Oftentimes Democrats have voted with us and we appreciate it as do
the American people who have been demanding these and other reforms for
years. But we have much, much more work to do and we will get it done
in 100 days as we promised.
Mr. Speaker, I yield back the balance of my time, and I move the
previous question on the motion.
The SPEAKER pro tempore. Without objection, the previous question is
ordered.
Mr. FRANK of Massachusetts. Mr. Speaker, I object to moving the
previous question.
The SPEAKER pro tempore. The question is on ordering the previous
question.
The question was taken; and the Speaker pro tempore announced that
the ayes appeared to have it.
Mr. FRANK of Massachusetts. Mr. Speaker, on that I demand the yeas
and nays.
The yeas and nays were ordered.
The vote was taken by electronic device, and there were--yeas 222,
nays 190, not voting 22, as follows:
[[Page H1676]]
[Roll No 122]
YEAS--222
Allard
Archer
Armey
Bachus
Baker (CA)
Baker (LA)
Ballenger
Barr
Barrett (NE)
Bartlett
Barton
Bass
Bateman
Bereuter
Bilbray
Bilirakis
Bliley
Blute
Boehlert
Boehner
Bonilla
Bono
Brownback
Bryant (TN)
Bunn
Bunning
Burr
Burton
Buyer
Callahan
Calvert
Camp
Canady
Castle
Chabot
Chambliss
Chenoweth
Christensen
Chrysler
Coble
Coburn
Collins (GA)
Combest
Cooley
Crane
Cremeans
Cubin
Cunningham
Davis
DeLay
Diaz-Balart
Dickey
Doolittle
Dornan
Dreier
Duncan
Dunn
Ehlers
Ehrlich
Emerson
English
Ensign
Everett
Ewing
Fawell
Fields (TX)
Flanagan
Foley
Forbes
Fowler
Fox
Franks (CT)
Franks (NJ)
Frelinghuysen
Frisa
Funderburk
Gallegly
Ganske
Gekas
Gilchrest
Gillmor
Gilman
Goodlatte
Goodling
Goss
Graham
Greenwood
Gunderson
Gutknecht
Hancock
Hansen
Hastert
Hastings (WA)
Hayworth
Hefley
Heineman
Herger
Hilleary
Hobson
Hoekstra
Hoke
Horn
Hostettler
Houghton
Hunter
Hutchinson
Hyde
Inglis
Istook
Johnson (CT)
Johnson, Sam
Jones
Kasich
Kelly
Kim
King
Kingston
Klug
Knollenberg
Kolbe
LaHood
Largent
Latham
LaTourette
Lazio
Lewis (CA)
Lewis (KY)
Lightfoot
Linder
Livingston
LoBiondo
Longley
Lucas
Manzullo
Martini
McCollum
McCrery
McHugh
McInnis
McIntosh
McKeon
Metcalf
Meyers
Mica
Miller (FL)
Molinari
Moorhead
Morella
Myers
Myrick
Nethercutt
Neumann
Ney
Norwood
Nussle
Packard
Paxon
Petri
Pombo
Porter
Portman
Pryce
Quillen
Quinn
Radanovich
Ramstad
Regula
Riggs
Roberts
Rogers
Rohrabacher
Ros-Lehtinen
Roth
Roukema
Royce
Salmon
Sanford
Saxton
Scarborough
Schaefer
Schiff
Seastrand
Sensenbrenner
Shadegg
Shaw
Shays
Skeen
Smith (MI)
Smith (NJ)
Smith (TX)
Smith (WA)
Solomon
Souder
Spence
Stearns
Stockman
Stump
Talent
Tate
Taylor (MS)
Taylor (NC)
Thomas
Thornberry
Tiahrt
Torkildsen
Upton
Vucanovich
Waldholtz
Walker
Walsh
Wamp
Watts (OK)
Weldon (FL)
Weldon (PA)
Weller
White
Wicker
Wolf
Young (AK)
Young (FL)
Zeliff
Zimmer
NAYS--190
Abercrombie
Ackerman
Andrews
Baesler
Baldacci
Barcia
Barrett (WI)
Beilenson
Bentsen
Bevill
Bishop
Bonior
Borski
Boucher
Brewster
Browder
Brown (CA)
Brown (FL)
Brown (OH)
Bryant (TX)
Cardin
Chapman
Clay
Clayton
Clyburn
Coleman
Collins (IL)
Collins (MI)
Condit
Conyers
Costello
Coyne
Cramer
Danner
de la Garza
Deal
DeFazio
DeLauro
Dellums
Deutsch
Dicks
Dingell
Dixon
Doggett
Doyle
Durbin
Edwards
Engel
Eshoo
Evans
Farr
Fazio
Fields (LA)
Filner
Flake
Foglietta
Ford
Frank (MA)
Frost
Furse
Gejdenson
Gephardt
Geren
Gonzalez
Gordon
Green
Gutierrez
Hall (OH)
Hall (TX)
Hamilton
Harman
Hastings (FL)
Hayes
Hilliard
Hinchey
Holden
Hoyer
Jackson-Lee
Jacobs
Johnson (SD)
Johnson, E. B.
Johnston
Kanjorski
Kaptur
Kennedy (MA)
Kennedy (RI)
Kennelly
Kildee
Kleczka
Klink
LaFalce
Lantos
Laughlin
Levin
Lewis (GA)
Lincoln
Lipinski
Lofgren
Lowey
Luther
Maloney
Manton
Markey
Mascara
McCarthy
McDermott
McHale
McKinney
McNulty
Meehan
Meek
Menendez
Mfume
Miller (CA)
Mineta
Minge
Mink
Moakley
Mollohan
Montgomery
Moran
Murtha
Nadler
Neal
Oberstar
Obey
Olver
Ortiz
Orton
Owens
Pallone
Parker
Pastor
Payne (NJ)
Payne (VA)
Pelosi
Peterson (FL)
Peterson (MN)
Pickett
Pomeroy
Poshard
Rahall
Rangel
Reed
Reynolds
Richardson
Rivers
Roemer
Roybal-Allard
Rush
Sabo
Sanders
Sawyer
Schroeder
Schumer
Scott
Serrano
Sisisky
Skaggs
Skelton
Slaughter
Spratt
Stark
Stenholm
Stokes
Studds
Stupak
Tanner
Tauzin
Tejeda
Thompson
Thornton
Thurman
Torres
Torricelli
Towns
Traficant
Velazquez
Vento
Visclosky
Volkmer
Ward
Waters
Watt (NC)
Waxman
Wise
Woolsey
Wyden
Wynn
Yates
NOT VOTING--22
Becerra
Berman
Clement
Clinger
Cox
Crapo
Dooley
Fattah
Gibbons
Hefner
Jefferson
Leach
Martinez
Matsui
McDade
Oxley
Rose
Shuster
Tucker
Whitfield
Williams
Wilson
{time} 2209
Mr. DEAL and Mr. WARD changed their vote from ``yea'' to ``nay.''
Mrs. KELLY changed her vote from ``nay'' to ``yea.''
So the previous question was ordered.
The result of the vote was announced as above recorded.
The SPEAKER pro tempore (Mr. Bonilla). The question is on the motion
offered by the gentleman from Texas [Mr. Armey].
The question was taken; and the Speaker pro tempore announced that
the ayes appeared to have it.
recorded vote
Mr. BONIOR. Mr. Speaker, I demand a recorded vote.
A recorded vote was ordered.
The vote was taken by electronic device, and there were--ayes 220,
noes 191, not voting 23, as follows:
[Roll No. 123]
AYES--220
Allard
Archer
Armey
Bachus
Baker (CA)
Baker (LA)
Ballenger
Barr
Barrett (NE)
Bartlett
Barton
Bass
Bateman
Bereuter
Bilbray
Bilirakis
Bliley
Blute
Boehlert
Boehner
Bonilla
Bono
Brownback
Bryant (TN)
Bunn
Bunning
Burr
Burton
Buyer
Callahan
Calvert
Camp
Canady
Castle
Chabot
Chambliss
Chenoweth
Christensen
Chrysler
Coble
Coburn
Collins (GA)
Combest
Cooley
Crane
Cremeans
Cubin
Cunningham
Davis
DeLay
Diaz-Balart
Dickey
Doolittle
Dornan
Dreier
Duncan
Dunn
Ehlers
Ehrlich
Emerson
English
Ensign
Everett
Ewing
Fawell
Fields (TX)
Flanagan
Foley
Forbes
Fowler
Fox
Franks (CT)
Franks (NJ)
Frelinghuysen
Frisa
Funderburk
Gallegly
Ganske
Gekas
Gilchrest
Gillmor
Gilman
Goodlatte
Goodling
Goss
Graham
Greenwood
Gunderson
Gutknecht
Hancock
Hansen
Hastert
Hastings (WA)
Hayworth
Hefley
Heineman
Herger
Hilleary
Hobson
Hoekstra
Hoke
Horn
Hostettler
Houghton
Hunter
Hutchinson
Hyde
Inglis
Istook
Johnson (CT)
Johnson, Sam
Jones
Kasich
Kelly
Kim
King
Kingston
Klug
Knollenberg
Kolbe
LaHood
Largent
Latham
LaTourette
Lazio
Lewis (CA)
Lewis (KY)
Lightfoot
Linder
Livingston
LoBiondo
Longley
Lucas
Manzullo
Martini
McCollum
McHugh
McInnis
McIntosh
McKeon
Metcalf
Meyers
Mica
Miller (FL)
Molinari
Moorhead
Morella
Myers
Myrick
Nethercutt
Neumann
Ney
Norwood
Nussle
Packard
Paxon
Petri
Pombo
Porter
Portman
Pryce
Quillen
Quinn
Radanovich
Ramstad
Regula
Riggs
Roberts
Rogers
Rohrabacher
Ros-Lehtinen
Roth
Roukema
Royce
Salmon
Sanford
Saxton
Scarborough
Schaefer
Schiff
Seastrand
Sensenbrenner
Shadegg
Shaw
Shays
Skeen
Smith (MI)
Smith (NJ)
Smith (TX)
Smith (WA)
Solomon
Souder
Spence
Stearns
Stockman
Stump
Talent
Tate
Taylor (NC)
Thomas
Thornberry
Tiahrt
Torkildsen
Upton
Vucanovich
Waldholtz
Walker
Walsh
Wamp
Watts (OK)
Weldon (FL)
Weldon (PA)
Weller
White
Wicker
Wolf
Young (AK)
Young (FL)
Zeliff
Zimmer
NOES--191
Abercrombie
Ackerman
Andrews
Baesler
Baldacci
Barcia
Barrett (WI)
Beilenson
Bentsen
Bevill
Bishop
Bonior
Borski
Boucher
Brewster
Browder
Brown (CA)
Brown (FL)
Brown (OH)
Bryant (TX)
Cardin
Chapman
Clay
Clayton
Clyburn
Coleman
Collins (IL)
Collins (MI)
Condit
Conyers
Costello
Coyne
Cramer
Danner
de la Garza
Deal
DeFazio
DeLauro
Dellums
Deutsch
Dicks
Dingell
Dixon
Doggett
Doyle
Durbin
Edwards
Engel
Eshoo
Evans
Farr
Fazio
Fields (LA)
Filner
Flake
Foglietta
Ford
Frank (MA)
Frost
Furse
Gejdenson
Gephardt
Geren
Gonzalez
Gordon
Green
Gutierrez
Hall (OH)
Hall (TX)
Hamilton
Harman
Hastings (FL)
Hayes
Hilliard
Hinchey
Holden
Hoyer
Jackson-Lee
Jacobs
Johnson (SD)
Johnson, E. B.
Johnston
Kanjorski
Kaptur
Kennedy (MA)
Kennedy (RI)
Kennelly
Kildee
Kleczka
Klink
LaFalce
Lantos
Laughlin
Levin
Lewis (GA)
Lincoln
Lipinski
Lofgren
Lowey
Luther
Maloney
Manton
Markey
Mascara
McCarthy
[[Page H1677]] McDermott
McHale
McKinney
McNulty
Meehan
Meek
Menendez
Mfume
Miller (CA)
Mineta
Minge
Mink
Moakley
Mollohan
Montgomery
Moran
Murtha
Nadler
Neal
Oberstar
Obey
Olver
Ortiz
Orton
Owens
Pallone
Parker
Pastor
Payne (NJ)
Payne (VA)
Pelosi
Peterson (FL)
Peterson (MN)
Pickett
Pomeroy
Poshard
Rahall
Rangel
Reed
Reynolds
Richardson
Rivers
Roemer
Roybal-Allard
Rush
Sabo
Sanders
Sawyer
Schroeder
Schumer
Scott
Serrano
Sisisky
Skaggs
Skelton
Slaughter
Spratt
Stark
Stenholm
Stokes
Studds
Stupak
Tanner
Tauzin
Taylor (MS)
Tejeda
Thompson
Thornton
Thurman
Torres
Torricelli
Towns
Traficant
Velazquez
Vento
Visclosky
Volkmer
Ward
Waters
Watt (NC)
Waxman
Wise
Woolsey
Wyden
Wynn
Yates
NOT VOTING--23
Becerra
Berman
Clement
Clinger
Cox
Crapo
Dooley
Fattah
Gibbons
Hefner
Jefferson
Leach
Martinez
Matsui
McCrery
McDade
Oxley
Rose
Shuster
Tucker
Whitfield
Williams
Wilson
{time} 2226
Mr. WATT of North Carolina changed his vote from ``aye'' to ``no.''
So the motion was agreed to.
The result of the vote was announced as above recorded.
A motion to reconsider was laid on the table.
____________________