[Congressional Record Volume 141, Number 34 (Thursday, February 23, 1995)]
[House]
[Pages H2144-H2148]
From the Congressional Record Online through the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]




                              {time}  1930
                   REGULATORY TRANSITION ACT OF 1995

  The SPEAKER pro tempore. Pursuant to House Resolution 93 and rule 
XXIII, the Chair declares the House in the Committee of the Whole House 
on the State of the Union for the further consideration of the bill, 
H.R. 450.

                              {time}  1930


                     in the committee of the whole

  Accordingly, the House resolved itself into the Committee of the 
Whole House on the State of the Union for the further consideration of 
the bill (H.R. 450), to ensure economy and efficiency of Federal 
Government operations by establishing a moratorium on regulatory 
rulemaking actions, and for other purposes, with Mr. LaHood in the 
chair.
  The Clerk read the title of the bill.
  The CHAIRMAN. When the Committee of the Whole rose earlier today, the 
amendment offered by the gentlewoman from the District of Columbia [Ms. 
Norton] as amended had been disposed of.
  For what purpose does the gentleman from Indiana [Mr. McIntosh] rise?
  Mr. McINTOSH. Mr. Chairman, I move to strike the last word.
  Mr. Chairman, I yield to the gentleman from Texas [Mr. Smith].
  Mr. SMITH of Texas. Mr. Chairman, I thank the gentleman from Indiana 
[Mr. McIntosh] for yielding to me for the purpose of a colloquy, and I 
would like to ask the chairman of the subcommittee three questions, if 
I could. The first question is this: In December 1994, the INS 
promulgated comprehensive regulations to streamline the asylum process 
and prevent abuse of the asylum system. Is it your understanding that 
these regulations would be excluded under section 6(3)(B)(i) as being 
``limited to streamlining a rule, regulation, or administrative 
process?''
  Mr. McINTOSH. Yes, that is my understanding of the effect of section 
6(3)(B)(i) with respect to streamlining INS regulations of this type.
  Mr. SMITH of Texas. In 1994, the Violent Crime Control and Law 
Enforcement Act and the Immigration and Nationality Technical 
Corrections Act established a process to expeditiously remove from the 
United States criminal aliens. Is it your understanding that these 
regulations will be excluded from the moratorium because they fit 
within the streamlining exception under section 6(3)(B)(i)?
  Mr. McINTOSH. Yes, that is my understanding.
  Mr. SMITH of Texas. And last, I appreciate the gentleman's patience, 
the third question is: It is my understanding the INS also plans to 
issue regulations to streamline the rules and procedures for certain 
types of nonimmigrant visas, in part to prevent the abuse of such 
visas. Is it your understanding such reforms to the visa process fall 
under the streamlining exclusion under section 6(3)(B)(i)?
  Mr. McINTOSH. Yes, that is my understanding.
  Mr. SMITH of Texas. Mr. Chairman, I thank the gentleman from Indiana 
[Mr. McIntosh].
  Mr. McINTOSH. Mr. Chairman, I yield back the balance of my time.
                     Amendment offered by Mr. Hayes

  Mr. HAYES. Mr. Chairman, I offer an amendment.
  The Clerk read as follows:

       Amendment offered by Mr. Hayes: In section 6(4), in the 
     last sentence, after ``restriction'' insert the following new 
     clarifying clause: ``(including any agency action which 
     establishes, modifies, or conducts a regulatory program for a 
     recreational or subsistence activity, including but not 
     limited to hunting, fishing, and camping, if a Federal law 
     prohibits the recreational or subsistence activity in the 
     absence of the agency action)''.

  Mr. HAYES (during the reading). Mr. Chairman, I ask unanimous consent 
that the amendment be considered as read and printed in the Record.
  The CHAIRMAN. Is there objection to the request of the gentleman from 
Louisiana?
  There was no objection.
  The CHAIRMAN. Pursuant to the order of the House of today the 
gentleman from Louisiana [Mr. Hayes] and a Member opposed each will 
control 10 minutes.
  The Chair recognizes the gentleman from Louisiana [Mr. Hayes].
  Mr. HAYES. Mr. Chairman, I rise in support of an amendment that while 
styled as such because of the procedural rules of the House is actually 
a clarification language of section 64.
  As background it should be noted that the reason that we are here 
this evening is because we have had so many regulatory actions, they 
have trampled on so many individuals' rights, and we have had so many 
instances in which we were unable to redress the complaints made by 
those whom we represent that it boiled over to the point where finally 
there is a regulatory reaction. I say to my colleagues, incredibly 
enough the kinds of things that were happening to folks at home that 
led to this sort of concern are the kinds of things they complain to 
and to you about when you return there. They walk up and they say, 
``Look, my son is owning a piece of property that has some water on it. 
There's no means by which I can tell what it is, and unless I apply for 
a permit to do something, the Corps of Engineers won't tell me what it 
is, but the minute I decide to put some kind of crawfish pond there I 
find out the entire Federal bureaucracy not only wants to tell me what 
it is, but what to do with it.''
  Mr. Chairman, we have regulatory overreach that has caused us in 
representing those half million-plus people who call us Congressmen to 
come here this evening.
  I say to my colleagues, incredibly enough, with the efforts that 
deserve 
[[Page H2145]]  applause from Mr. McIntosh, Mr. Peterson, Mr. Condit, 
when those efforts are made, the same agencies do exactly the same 
thing, only they don't highlight what it is they did to trample rights. 
They turn around and say, ``We will construe this to mean we're going 
to do more things to you. We're going to construe your action to mean 
we're not going to have a duck season. We're going to construe your 
action to mean we're not protecting health.'' They're in the habit of 
taking the act, taking the regs, and doing harm to individuals, and 
they just can't break that habit.
  For that reason we are often clarifying language, Mr. Chairman.
  I do not believe that either the intent, nor actually the text of 
this bill, requires that this be done, but I do believe that sending a 
strong message to those who believe regulations equates arrogance, to 
those who believe regulation means power, to those who believe 
regulation means enforcement without any glimpse of humanity; that is 
why the clarifying language is offered.
  Mr. BAKER of Louisiana. Mr. Chairman, will the gentleman yield?
  Mr. HAYES. I yield to the gentleman from Louisiana for his comments.
  Mr. BAKER of Louisiana. Mr. Chairman, I compliment the gentleman on 
his fine statement and agree with this state of frustration about our 
growing regulatory process.
  In working with the gentleman on this amendment, Mr. Chairman, I 
think it should be made clear that the action we are about to take is 
in relation to the Migratory Bird Act. For those who are not familiar 
with it, having been passed in 1918, it sets a framework in place which 
prohibits the taking of birds or migratory fowl that are protected by 
Federal law, and each year the Department of the Interior issues a 
waiver allowing all States to promulgate their own rules and 
regulations for the taking of migratory fowl.
  Stated in another way, Mr. Chairman, duck or geese hunting.
  It is now apparent that unless some action is taken by legislative 
remedy that this year's season for many avid hunters may be placed in 
jeopardy. In fact, we received a communication from the Secretary of 
the Interior indicating that they would be unable to promulgate timely, 
necessary rules to allow the season to go forward as is customary. For 
those reasons the gentleman's amendment, as I understand it, allows a 
provision which says, if the agency does not take action that hunting 
and fishing seasons would, and their conduct would, not be impaired by 
the failure of the agency to act timely.
  This is an appropriate response and one which the gentleman correctly 
describes as definitional, only it is not clearly the intention of the 
authors of the legislation to create this difficulty, and perhaps it 
does not. But due to the confusion from the secretary's letter which 
was created we have now consulted with Ducks Unlimited, a number of 
other organizations who have great interest in this matter, and they 
have all indicated their strong support for this amendment.
  Mr. Chairman, I am happy to rise in support of the gentleman's 
amendment and commend him for his leadership in this matter.
  Mr. VOLKMER. Mr. Chairman, will the gentleman yield?
  Mr. HAYES. I yield to the gentleman from Missouri.
  Mr. VOLKMER. As I understand it, the gentleman's amendment does not 
specifically exempt the provisions for water fowl or migratory bird 
hunting season, but merely puts a provision in it to waive; is that 
correct, the requirement?
  Mr. HAYES. Mr. Chairman, what it does is it takes the definitional 
section of the word ``rule'' which is in section 64 of the act, and the 
language which is included says that the agency action which 
establishes, modifies or conducts a regulatory program for recreational 
or subsistence activity, including, but not limited to, hunting, 
fishing and camping. I believe that it would indeed cover those 
activities to such an extent that it would not be justified for a 
Federal agency to say that with the passage of this act they are not 
empowered to go forward with their regulatory duty in establishing 
those seasons.
  Mr. VOLKMER. In other words, Mr. Chairman, the gentleman is saying 
that now under this act with his amendment they will be able to provide 
the proper regulations for those activities?
  Mr. HAYES. Yes, sir, with one minor exception. The gentleman from 
Louisiana [Mr. Baker] and I decided that the majority leader, the 
gentleman from Texas [Mr. Armey], should not be allowed to fish in 
Louisiana, so with that one exception it will allow everyone else in 
America to go forward.

                              {time}  1940

  Mr. VOLKMER. Mr. Chairman, I just want to say one other thing: I beg 
to differ just a wee bit with the gentleman from Louisiana as far as 
the intent and the purpose of the legislation that is now before us, 
the act itself. I am sorry, but I personally would have to agree with 
the Secretary as to the effect of that legislation without the 
amendment. I am sorry to differ. I do not think it is just for that 
purpose.
  Mr. HAYES. Reclaiming my time, I would simply make this observation 
as a Democrat who has been here for 8 years. The first chair of the 
committee that has allowed me to offer an amendment to change language 
has been this Republican chair, and if I am going to base it upon his 
actions, then I must interpret his actions in so doing as a good faith 
effort to accommodate this concern, which would lead me to believe that 
the language could not have been intentionally crafted, or else he 
would have refused to do this.
  I know that language is quite often a problem, especially when we 
have elephants and donkeys. We allow language sometimes to take 
precedence over substance. In this instance, I can only say that the 
working relationship has not only been fair, but cordial. Like 
anything, it may be tedious and it may not be easy, but it certainly 
has been productive, because I think this amendment is about to pass, 
to the benefit of people across the country.
  Mr. VOLKMER. Mr. Chairman, if the gentleman will yield further, I 
support the amendment.
  Mr. Chairman, Louisiana is known as the Sportsman's Paradise. 
Recreational activities on our bayous, marshes, rivers, and the Gulf of 
Mexico and in our vast wilderness and wildlife refuge areas are a part 
of our very way of life. There are over 66,000 duck hunters and over 
500 hunting camps for which the annual multiplier effect on Louisiana's 
economy is $57 million annually. Hunting in general provides over $630 
million annually to our State. These figures, Mr. Chairman, are 
conservative.
  The amendment that we are offering today is a bipartisan proposal, 
which is intended to address potential unintended consequences of H.R. 
450 that would result in the cancellation or delay of the upcoming duck 
season and other important hunting and fishing opportunities. As you 
may know, under the provisions of the Migratory Bird Treaty Act, unless 
as permitted by a regulatory action of the Department of Interior, it 
is unlawful to pursue, hunt, take, capture, kill, et cetera, migratory 
birds. These prohibitions are included as part of treaties between the 
United States and Great Britain, the United States and Mexico, and the 
United States and Japan, all of which are for the protection of 
migratory birds. Section 704 of Title 16 U.S.C. Annotated then 
summarizes the regulatory process that the Department of Interior must 
follow to enable migratory bird seasons to go forward.
  Our amendment would refine section 6 of the bill to exclude from the 
definition of regulatory rule making--therefore, from coverage under 
the moratorium--agency actions in the management of regulatory programs 
for recreational or subsistence activities including but not limited to 
hunting, fishing, and camping, if the applicable statute prohibits such 
activities in the absence of this agency action.
  Our amendment would also answer the concerns of my friend from 
Alaska, Mr. Young, with respect to the prohibitions of subsistence 
hunting and fishing, which are critical to survival of many of his 
constituents. Finally, the Department of Interior would also be able to 
move ahead with plans to open wildlife refuges in Louisiana and 
California to hunting and fishing.
  The Baker-Hayes-Young amendment is consistent with the intent of H.R. 
450 to allow agencies to promulgate nonburdensome, common sense 
directives like the regulatory framework that the Department of 
Interior, through the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service, has set up for 
duck season since the 1950's. The onerous rules that H.R. 450 was 
proposed to stop are rules which impose needless or wasteful costs on 
the American economy, whereas, if we fail to clarify this language, 
recreational endeavors that in fact enhance our economy will be 
curtailed. We cannot let this happen.
  [[Page H2146]] Ducks Unlimited, which represents close to 20,000 
conservationists in Louisiana and 550,000 nationwide, in Canada, and 
Mexico, has indicated to me that our amendment will fix this problem. 
The DU mission statement to ``fulfill the life cycle needs of North 
American waterfowl'' suggests why we must not stand by and presume that 
the duck season will go ahead without this clarifying amendment. These 
regulations are crucial to gather the scientific data necessary to 
ensure the responsible conservation of waterfowl.
  Therefore, I urge you to vote for the Baker-Hayes-Young amendment.
  Mr. Chairman, is there time for an opponent to the amendment under 
the provision?
  The CHAIRMAN. There is 10 minutes on each side. The gentleman from 
Louisiana [Mr. Hayes] the proponent, has 10 minutes. There is also 10 
minutes for an opponent.
  Mr. VOLKMER. Mr. Chairman, I would ask that that 10 minutes be 
allocated to the gentlewoman from Illinois [Mrs. Collins], not that she 
is opposed to the amendment, because I know she supports it, but just 
in fairness to give her an opportunity to speak.
  The CHAIRMAN. Does the gentlewoman from Illinois seek time in 
opposition?
  Mrs. COLLINS of Illinois. I do, Mr. Chairman.
  Mr. HAYES. Mr. Chairman, how much time is remaining for me?
  The CHAIRMAN. The gentleman from Louisiana [Mr. Hayes] has 3 minutes 
remaining, and the gentlewoman from Illinois [Mrs. Collins] has 10 
minutes remaining.
  Mr. HAYES. Mr. Chairman, I yield 30 seconds to the gentleman from 
Minnesota [Mr. Peterson].
  Mr. PETERSON. Mr. Chairman, I thank the gentleman for yielding.
  Mr. Chairman, I am one of those that happens to think we do not need 
this amendment. I think that duck hunting was exempt under what we put 
together in the committee. But I think that this amendment will 
reassure any of those that are concerned, and I support the amendment.
  Mrs. COLLINS of Illinois. Mr. Chairman, I yield 1 minute to the 
gentleman from Wisconsin [Mr. Kleczka].
  Mr. KLECZKA. Mr. Chairman, I rise tonight to just seek some 
clarification. I listened to the author try to explain it, but it was 
not really clear to me. I have here a Republican handout from one of 
the previous amendments, and in part it says let us not exempt this 
bill to death, and as I understand the amendment, what we are doing is 
being very specific that there is an exemption as it relates to the 
hunting season for ducks. I think that is pretty important stuff, but I 
do not know if we should exempt the bill to death.
  I recall a previous amendment dealing with a very serious water 
problem in the Milwaukee area in the State of Wisconsin, and that was 
the cryptosporidium problem. We tried to exempt the clean water 
regulations in this bill and we were turned down in large part by the 
Republicans, but now we can exempt the bill to death by providing an 
exemption for ducks.
  The problem I have with that is I think clean water and 
cryptosporidium problems are more important than the duck season. I 
think it is a sad day in the House of Representatives when we put ducks 
above water safety in this country, clean water regulations. But so be 
it, that is the new regime we are working under.
  I want to respond to the author of the amendment. I do object to one 
of the statements made when he indicates that if this was last year the 
Democrats would not let him offer this amendment, now he has free rein 
to offer it. My Lord, I would be shocked if we let him offer such 
nonsense to this bill, especially when we turn down water safety, 
meeting specs, things of that nature, which on a priority scale, my 
friends, I would think is a smidgen higher than the all important duck 
season in this country.
  Mr. HAYES. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself such time as I may consume.
  Mr. Chairman, I would like to respond to that in the words of Sixty 
Rayburn, the legendary legislator from the State of Louisiana. Sixty 
once looked at a Federal legislator and said, ``Son, I can explain it 
to you, but I can't understand it for you.''
  What I would say to the gentleman is that my observation was that I 
have been afforded an opportunity to offer an amendment. That amendment 
is relevant, it is pertinent, and it covers far more items than simply 
a migratory waterfowl season.
  But I would also say that in parishes, counties I represent, 30 
percent of Vermilion Parish, 35 percent of Cameron Parish is on 
tourism-related to hunting. So for a party that cares about the heart 
and soul of people, one out of three ought to be enough to care about 
that live in a parish to do something for them. And I would say that 
this kind of attitude is why I stay in the Democratic Party, waiting 
for some more Democrats to get there and join me.
  Mr. Chairman, I yield back the balance of my time.
  Mrs. COLLINS of Illinois. Mr. Chairman, I yield 1 minute to the 
gentleman from New Jersey [Mr. Torricelli].
  Mr. TORRICELLI. Mr. Chairman, I thank the gentlewoman for yielding.
  Mr. Chairman, I say to my friend, the gentleman from Louisiana [Mr. 
Hayes], I understand how seriously he feels about this issue. I respect 
him for bringing it to the floor. But I think a fair point has been 
made. As he cares passionately about the rights of his constituents to 
hunt, the economic interests of his State, some of us have felt 
passionately after years of work about the ability to protect children 
from the problem of E. coli bacteria, with 4,000 deaths a year; with 
the problem that our water supplies are being contaminated by bacteria.
  The gentleman deserves to have his amendment voted upon. Indeed, he 
may deserve to have it passed. But a fair point has been made. It 
cannot escape the attention of the American people that the interests 
of children, the interests of our citizens and the safety of their 
homes and restaurants came to this floor. After years of fighting to 
get Federal regulations to protect them, those regulations are in 
jeopardy. The comparison was a fair one. I thank the gentleman for 
raising it.
  Mrs. COLLINS of Illinois. Mr. Chairman, I yield 1 minute to the 
gentleman from Pennsylvania [Mr. Kanjorski].
  Mr. KANJORSKI. Mr. Chairman, I understand my colleague's interest in 
his district and ducks. Now my question is, if the duck lands on water 
in Wisconsin that is contaminated with cryptosporidium, does the 
extension of the exception to the duck allow a procedure to protect 
other ducks from this infection?
  Mr. BAKER of Louisiana. Mr. Chairman, will the gentleman yield?
  Mr. KANJORSKI. I yield to the gentleman from Louisiana.
  Mr. BAKER of Louisiana. Mr. Chairman, I think the whole point of this 
amendment has been missed. If ducks were present tonight, they would 
not be for this amendment. This allows a hunting season.
  Mr. KANJORSKI. Mr. Chairman, the gentleman's point is well taken. 
What happens if the hunter is successful and he ingests the duck and he 
suffers from cryptosporidium? Has it become more important that we 
protect the ducks and offer the protection to the ducks, or does it 
become more important to protect people.
                              {time}  1950

  Mrs. COLLINS of Illinois. Mr. Chairman, it is very interesting, it 
seems that this body is about to vote for this duck hunting amendment. 
And as has been said before, there have been other amendments which I 
think were just really great amendments. They dealt with the American 
people.
  This body has voted against allowing the FEC rules on personal use of 
campaign funds to proceed. They have voted against allowing expedited 
consideration of meritless asylum requests. They have voted against 
rules and regulations that would allow new HUD rules giving preference 
to elderly in section 8 housing, rules pertaining to elimination of 
drug use in Federal housing, designations of empowerment zones that 
allows datebase for child molesters. They have voted against, if 
Members will, child molesters, children, by saying we cannot have any 
datebase for child molesters as required in last year's crime bill. And 
yet they are willing to vote for duck hunting.
  Mr. Chairman, this amendment is not the most wonderful amendment I 
have ever seen in my life. Somebody said, if it looks like a duck, 
sounds like a duck, quacks like a duck, it is a duck.
   [[Page H2147]] Mr. SCHUMER. Mr. Chairman, will the gentlewoman 
yield?
  Mrs. COLLINS of Illinois. I yield to the gentleman from New York.
  Mr. SCHUMER. Mr. Chairman, I would just say on an amendment like 
this, with the National Rifle Association and Charles Schumer in 
agreement, how can we turn it down?
  Mrs. LINCOLN. Mr. Chairman, it appears that duck hunting season has 
gotten caught in the crossfire as Republicans continue to move at a 
breakneck speed to pass the Contract With America.
  Hunting is one of the simple pleasures for many of us in Arkansas. 
But continued Federal attempts to dicker with hunting regulations have 
turned hunting into a complex legal battle.
  The U.S. Fish and wildlife Service has said that today's proposal to 
place a retroactive moratorium on Federal regulations would cancel next 
year's waterfowl season
  Each year Fish and Wildlife must issue regulations setting the 
hunting season and bag limits for migratory waterfowl including ducks, 
geese, and doves. Their decision is based on a long and complex process 
of public hearings and meetings, which end shortly before hunting 
season opens October 1.
  As this bill is written, those meetings could not take place because 
Fish and Wildlife has interpreted hunting season meetings to be outside 
the realm of routine administrative regulations.
  In defense of hunting season, I sent a letter last week to Mr. 
Clinger, chairman of the Government Reform and Oversight Committee, 
asking that waterfowl hunting season regulations be exempt from this 
bill.
  Therefore, I am extremely pleased to see this amendment offered and 
urge my colleagues to support its passage.
  Let me assure the American people that I wholeheartedly support 
efforts to free them from burdensome and unnecessary Federal 
regulations. But I fear the unintended consequences of Republicans' 
efforts to push reforms so quickly.
  As a hunter myself and representing approximately 60,000 Arkansas 
migratory bird hunters, I must be emphatic that canceling the 1995-96 
waterfowl season would not be acceptable.
  Migratory bird hunters spend $3.6 billion annually nationwide. In 
Arkansas, migratory bird hunting brings $1.5 million to the State and 
$31 million in retail sales.
  This revenue, in addition to the family traditions that have been 
built around hunting season, should not be denied by Congress.
  Mr. YOUNG of Alaska. Mr. Chairman, I rise in support of the Hayes 
amendment and in support of H.R. 450.
  There has been a lot of talk about which regulations will and will 
not be affected by the moratorium. Frankly, I have had enough. It's no 
secret, the administration has identified, in an effort to kill the 
bill, a select few routine regulations which they say will not continue 
if this bill is signed into law. Two of those examples are the 
migratory bird hunting regulations and subsistence hunting regulations 
in Alaska.
  Frankly, I am of the opinion that these activities are permitted--
they are routine administrative functions.
  However, this amendment is intended to clarify for the Department of 
the Interior, who apparently cannot read the law, so they can issue 
regulations for recreational or subsistence hunting, fishing, and 
camping for the 1995-96 seasons.
  I urge my colleagues' support of this amendment which is offered for 
the benefit of Alaska Natives and the sports men and women of America.
  Mr. COLLINS of Illinois. Mr. Chairman, I yield back the balance of my 
time.
  The CHAIRMAN. The question is on the amendment offered by the 
gentleman from Louisiana [Mr. Hayes].
  The question was taken; and the Chairman announced that the ayes 
appeared to have it.


                             recorded vote

  Mr. CLINGER. Mr. Chairman, I demand a recorded vote.
  A recorded vote was ordered.
  The vote was taken by electronic device, and there were--ayes 383, 
noes 34, answered ``present'' 4, not voting 13, as follows:
                             [Roll No 166]

                               AYES--383

     Abercrombie
     Ackerman
     Allard
     Archer
     Armey
     Bachus
     Baesler
     Baker (CA)
     Baker (LA)
     Baldacci
     Ballenger
     Barcia
     Barr
     Barrett (NE)
     Barrett (WI)
     Bartlett
     Bass
     Bateman
     Bentsen
     Bereuter
     Berman
     Bevill
     Bilbray
     Bilirakis
     Bishop
     Bliley
     Blute
     Boehlert
     Boehner
     Bonilla
     Bonior
     Bono
     Borski
     Boucher
     Brewster
     Browder
     Brown (CA)
     Brown (OH)
     Brownback
     Bryant (TN)
     Bryant (TX)
     Bunn
     Bunning
     Burr
     Burton
     Buyer
     Callahan
     Calvert
     Camp
     Canady
     Cardin
     Castle
     Chabot
     Chambliss
     Chapman
     Chenoweth
     Christensen
     Chrysler
     Clay
     Clement
     Clinger
     Clyburn
     Coble
     Coburn
     Coleman
     Collins (GA)
     Combest
     Condit
     Cooley
     Costello
     Cox
     Coyne
     Cramer
     Crane
     Crapo
     Cremeans
     Cubin
     Cunningham
     Danner
     Davis
     de la Garza
     Deal
     DeFazio
     DeLauro
     DeLay
     Deutsch
     Diaz-Balart
     Dickey
     Dicks
     Dingell
     Dixon
     Doggett
     Dooley
     Doolittle
     Dornan
     Dreier
     Duncan
     Dunn
     Durbin
     Edwards
     Ehrlich
     Emerson
     Engel
     English
     Ensign
     Eshoo
     Evans
     Everett
     Ewing
     Farr
     Fawell
     Fazio
     Fields (LA)
     Fields (TX)
     Filner
     Flanagan
     Foley
     Forbes
     Ford
     Fowler
     Fox
     Frank (MA)
     Franks (CT)
     Franks (NJ)
     Frelinghuysen
     Frisa
     Frost
     Funderburk
     Furse
     Gallegly
     Ganske
     Gejdenson
     Gekas
     Gephardt
     Geren
     Gilchrest
     Gillmor
     Gilman
     Goodlatte
     Goodling
     Gordon
     Goss
     Graham
     Green
     Greenwood
     Gunderson
     Gutknecht
     Hall (OH)
     Hall (TX)
     Hamilton
     Hancock
     Hansen
     Harman
     Hastert
     Hastings (WA)
     Hayes
     Hayworth
     Hefley
     Hefner
     Heineman
     Herger
     Hilleary
     Hilliard
     Hinchey
     Hobson
     Hoekstra
     Hoke
     Holden
     Horn
     Hostettler
     Houghton
     Hoyer
     Hunter
     Hutchinson
     Hyde
     Inglis
     Istook
     Jackson-Lee
     Jefferson
     Johnson (CT)
     Johnson (SD)
     Johnson, E. B.
     Johnson, Sam
     Jones
     Kaptur
     Kasich
     Kelly
     Kennedy (MA)
     Kennedy (RI)
     Kennelly
     Kildee
     Kim
     King
     Kingston
     Klink
     Klug
     Knollenberg
     Kolbe
     LaFalce
     LaHood
     Lantos
     Largent
     Latham
     LaTourette
     Laughlin
     Lazio
     Leach
     Levin
     Lewis (CA)
     Lewis (KY)
     Lightfoot
     Lincoln
     Lipinski
     Livingston
     LoBiondo
     Lofgren
     Longley
     Lucas
     Luther
     Maloney
     Manton
     Manzullo
     Markey
     Martinez
     Martini
     Mascara
     Matsui
     McCollum
     McCrery
     McDade
     McDermott
     McHugh
     McInnis
     McIntosh
     McKeon
     McNulty
     Meehan
     Menendez
     Metcalf
     Meyers
     Mfume
     Mica
     Miller (CA)
     Miller (FL)
     Mineta
     Minge
     Mink
     Moakley
     Molinari
     Mollohan
     Montgomery
     Moorhead
     Morella
     Murtha
     Myers
     Myrick
     Neal
     Nethercutt
     Neumann
     Ney
     Norwood
     Nussle
     Oberstar
     Obey
     Olver
     Orton
     Oxley
     Packard
     Pallone
     Parker
     Pastor
     Paxon
     Payne (VA)
     Pelosi
     Peterson (FL)
     Peterson (MN)
     Petri
     Pickett
     Pombo
     Pomeroy
     Porter
     Portman
     Poshard
     Pryce
     Quillen
     Quinn
     Radanovich
     Rahall
     Ramstad
     Reed
     Regula
     Reynolds
     Richardson
     Riggs
     Rivers
     Roberts
     Roemer
     Rogers
     Rohrabacher
     Ros-Lehtinen
     Rose
     Roth
     Roukema
     Royce
     Sabo
     Salmon
     Sanders
     Sanford
     Sawyer
     Saxton
     Scarborough
     Schaefer
     Schiff
     Schroeder
     Schumer
     Scott
     Seastrand
     Sensenbrenner
     Shadegg
     Shaw
     Shays
     Shuster
     Sisisky
     Skaggs
     Skeen
     Skelton
     Smith (MI)
     Smith (NJ)
     Smith (TX)
     Smith (WA)
     Solomon
     Spence
     Spratt
     Stearns
     Stenholm
     Stockman
     Stokes
     Studds
     Stump
     Stupak
     Talent
     Tanner
     Tate
     Tauzin
     Taylor (MS)
     Taylor (NC)
     Tejeda
     Thomas
     Thornberry
     Thornton
     Thurman
     Tiahrt
     Torkildsen
     Torricelli
     Traficant
     Upton
     Vento
     Visclosky
     Volkmer
     Vucanovich
     Waldholtz
     Walker
     Walsh
     Wamp
     Ward
     Watts (OK)
     Waxman
     Weldon (FL)
     Weldon (PA)
     Weller
     White
     Whitfield
     Wicker
     Williams
     Wilson
     Wise
     Wolf
     Wyden
     Wynn
     Young (AK)
     Young (FL)
     Zeliff
     Zimmer

                                NOES--34

     Beilenson
     Clayton
     Collins (IL)
     Collins (MI)
     Conyers
     Dellums
     Doyle
     Flake
     Foglietta
     Gutierrez
     Hastings (FL)
     Jacobs
     Johnston
     Kanjorski
     Kleczka
     Lewis (GA)
     Lowey
     McHale
     McKinney
     Moran
     Nadler
     Owens
     Payne (NJ)
     Roybal-Allard
     Rush
     Serrano
     Thompson
     Torres
     Towns
     Tucker
     Velazquez
     Waters
     Watt (NC)
     Woolsey

                        ANSWERED ``PRESENT''--4

     Brown (FL)
     Rangel
     Slaughter
     Souder

                             NOT VOTING--13

     Andrews
     Barton
     Becerra
     Ehlers
     Fattah
     Gibbons
     Gonzalez
     Linder
     McCarthy
     Meek
     Ortiz
     Stark
     Yates

                              {time}  2009

  Mr. RUSH changed his vote from ``aye'' to ``no.''
  Messrs. CASTLE, CHRISTENSEN, WHITE, and DAVIS changed their vote from 
``no'' to ``aye.''
  So the amendment was agreed to.
  [[Page H2148]] The result of the vote was announced as above 
recorded.
  Mr. CLINGER. Mr. Chairman, I move that the Committee do now rise.
  The motion was agreed to.
  Accordingly, the Committee rose; and the Speaker pro tempore (Mr. 
Largent) having assumed the chair, Mr. LaHood, Chairman of the 
Committee of the Whole House on the State of the Union, reported that 
that Committee, having had under consideration the bill (H.R. 450) to 
ensure economy and efficiency of Federal Government operations by 
establishing a moratorium on regulatory rulemaking actions, and for 
other purposes, had come to no resolution thereon.

                          ____________________