[Congressional Record Volume 141, Number 48 (Wednesday, March 15, 1995)]
[House]
[Pages H3189-H3193]
From the Congressional Record Online through the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
PROVIDING FOR CONSIDERATION OF H.R. 1158, EMERGENCY SUPPLEMENTAL
APPROPRIATIONS FOR ADDITIONAL DISASTER ASSISTANCE AND RESCISSIONS FOR
FISCAL YEAR 1995
Mr. MOAKLEY. Mr. Speaker, it gives me great pleasure to yield the
balance of our time to the gentleman from Missouri [Mr. Gephardt], the
distinguished minority leader.
The SPEAKER pro tempore (Mr. Hansen). The gentleman is recognized for
3\1/2\ minutes.
(Mr. GEPHARDT asked and was given permission to revise and extend his
remarks.)
Mr. GEPHARDT. Mr. Speaker, I rise today to implore my colleagues to
defeat this rule, to defeat this short-sighted, mean-spirited package
of cuts that are aimed right at the young people of this country.
Mr. Speaker, let us understand why the Republicans are proposing
these deep and dangerous cuts. It is not to balance the budget. It is
to pay for a tax cut that gives nearly 80 percent of the benefits to
people who earn $100,000 a year or more.
Each and every Member of this House has to look deep inside
themselves and ask a profoundly human question, a profoundly moral
question: What are
[[Page H3190]] we serving for? And who are we fighting for?
We should be fighting for young people, like Rusha Singleton of
Baltimore. She was here yesterday in the building in a press
conference. She talked about dropping out of school at age 16 when her
first child was born. She was determined to do everything she could to
stay off welfare. She did not have an education, she did not have
skills to earn a decent wage. She was forced onto welfare. She became
pregnant again. But through the Summer Youth Employment Program she was
able to pay the bills while she studied for her high school diploma.
She learned
clerical skills, she took her high school equivalency test this
Saturday. And soon she is going to get a positive result and she will
be able to support her children and hold her head up high as a
productive citizen of this society. Without that program, she would
still be in Baltimore stuck in welfare, stuck in a cycle of lack of
hope.
Then there is Damon Davis of Baltimore. He comes from a single-parent
household. He had to drop out of high school and take a low wage job to
support his family. Again, without the Summer Youth Program he would
have never had the opportunity to develop real skills and find a higher
paying job. Now he is about to get his diploma and be on the road to a
future as a productive citizen in this society.
Mr. Speaker, this bill is about a very clear principle and idea. Do
you want to invest your money in the people of this country? Do you
want people to be productive citizens, and by saying that is our moral
conscience, do we want to put that money in that investment in those
people? Or do we want to take it from them and give it to the
wealthiest, most privileged people in this society? Is that what we
want to do?
I do not think that is what we should do. The people who are at the
top who have done well, and God love them, we need them. Everybody
lives the American dream and wants to become wealthy, and everybody I
hope can become wealthy. But once you have reached that status, do we
need to help them again at the expense of the people who are trying to
crawl out of poverty?
This bill is wrong. It is morally wrong, and I urge Members to vote
against this rule and to vote against this bill. Stand up for the
Americans that are out there trying to pull themselves out of poverty
and be productive citizens. They are the people we should be fighting
for, not the people who have done well, who frankly do not even want
this tax cut, but want to make an investment in the poor and the middle
class citizens of our country.
Mr. DREIER. Mr. Speaker, I yield 1 minute to the gentleman from
Louisiana [Mr. Livingston], the chairman of the Committee on
Appropriations.
(Mr. LIVINGSTON asked and was given permission to revise and extend
his remarks.)
Mr. LIVINGSTON. Mr. Speaker, this bill only trims last year's
appropriation by a net of $11 billion. Last year's appropriation in the
total Federal budget ultimately amounted to $1.5 trillion. This a
little item in the Federal budget. It was also appropriated when the
Democrats controlled the Congress.
The Democrats, the other party, has said that we have not named
specifics. They said you cannot balance the budget unless you give
specifics. We have given specifics in this bill.
They said that we have not cut the pork. They are the ones that
passed the pork. They were in the majority last year and every year
before that for the last 40 years. It is their pork.
They said that the money that we are cutting goes to tax cuts. We
have a proposal that is allowed by this rule, which will be a
Democratic Party amendment, to apply these savings only to the deficit.
So all of these arguments are nothing more than the same old Chicken
Little-ism: The sky is falling, liberals are out of power, and what are
we going to do, beat our breasts and talk about the poor and the
elderly, when in fact all we are trying to do is bring common sense and
sanity to the U.S. Federal Budget.
Mr. DREIER. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself the balance of the time.
Mr. Speaker, this is a very simple debate which has come down to a
combination of rhetoric and reality. We have Members on the other side
of the aisle who offer great rhetoric about trying to balance the
budget, and yet the reality is they want to maintain the status quo
because they are not willing to step up to the plate and make these
tough decisions.
Most of them, according to Mr. Solomon's findings here, are big
spenders. But when it comes to actually making the tough decision, they
are voting to keep government as it is. We want to change government
for the better so the American people can be proud of what it is that
we are doing.
Mrs. MALONEY. Mr. Speaker, I rise in strong opposition to this rule.
Mr. Speaker, the underlying rescissions bill is a bad bill. The $17
billion in cuts fall most harshly and heavily on the neediest in our
society:
Women and infants who depend on WIC funding for simple sustenance;
Senior citizens who rely on LIHEAP funding to stay warm in the
winter;
Young men and women who need the Summer Jobs Program to give them the
skills to work and the incentive to stay off the streets.
But let me briefly point out why the rule itself must be defeated.
We will have no opportunity to make this bill better by restoring the
devastating cuts in critical domestic programs and paying for them from
the defense budget.
The American people should understand, for example, that for the cost
of one B-2 Stealth bomber, we could fully fund the Safe and Drug Free
Schools Program for 30 years.
But while the rule before us will take food off the tables of working
class Americans, it keeps Pentagon pork off the table for those of us
who wish to offer further budget cutting amendments.
This rule doesn't even allow me to try to cut one of the most
ridiculous programs in the Federal budget--the Civilian Marksmanship
Program.
This is a $2.5 million boondoggle which hands out free ammunition to
gun clubs to subsidize recreational shooting, mainly for children.
It's a sad day in the House when we pass a rule that will force
Congress to vote to take food and education away from our children
while making sure that we can still give them free bullets!
Let's defeat the rule and put together a bill that cuts programs that
need to be cut, rather than programs which will cut down the needy.
Mr. ORTON. Mr. Speaker, I rise in strong opposition to this extremely
restrictive rule.
Last year, I led a fight in this body to have fiscal year 1995
appropriations spending bills be considered under an open rule, with
unlimited opportunities to offer spending cut amendments. Under
Democratic leadership, we brought the last 11 appropriations bills to
the floor under an open rule. These bills accounted for almost 95
percent of discretionary spending.
During consideration of those bills, the House debated and voted on
74 amendments offered to cut fiscal year 1995 spending. Some of them
failed, many of them passed. Most importantly, we could accurately tell
the American public that all spending was on the table; that no rules
or procedural gimmicks were used to protect particular items of
spending.
Nine months later, we are revisiting fiscal year 1995 spending. The
new majority ran on a platform last year of open rules which would give
Members unfettered ability to cut spending. Many of these same Members
pilloried me last year for my activities on the so-called A-to-Z bill--
claiming--falsely--that I was standing in the way of spending cuts.
So what do these Members do now that they are in charge. They vote
for a rule that makes 80 percent of discretionary spending off-limits
from spending cuts--for the same fiscal year 1995 spending that the
Democratic leadership allowed virtually unlimited amendments. This is
the ultimate in hypocrisy, and I urge all Members of this body to
reject this rule.
Now, let me make it clear that I support bringing a rescission bill
to the floor today. With or without passage of a balanced budget
amendment, we have to continue to debate spending priorities and cut
spending where we can.
I also believe it is reasonable--even advisable--to bring this bill
to the floor under a rule which requires that any restoration of
proposed rescissions be offset by equal or greater spending cuts. This
is essential to preserve a base level of spending cuts.
However, the rule also unfairly provides that any offsetting cut be
made in the same chapter of the bill that the rescission restoration is
made. There is absolutely no justification for this rule. Leadership
has offered the excuse that this is necessary to avoid letting the
process get out of hand. With preprinting requirements in the Record,
such an argument escapes me completely. More importantly, it is
[[Page H3191]] hypocritical. Just a few weeks ago, the leadership
brought a supplemental bill to the floor which violated today's rule--
by paying for defense increases by cuts in nondefense discretionary
spending.
Finally--and most egregiously--the rule effectively prohibits
amendments which make cuts in the line items that are not included in
the bill. This is the ultimate in arrogance. Leadership is saying that
they and they alone will decide which items are on the chopping block
and which are completely immune from cuts.
I understand the motivation behind this rule. Leadership wants to
avoid embarrassing amendments to cut spending for projects which only
benefit Republicans. Leadership also wants to control our spending
priorities.
But, the effect of this is terrible, in two important ways. First,
according to my calculations, it bars spending cuts in almost 80
percent of the discretionary spending that we approved for fiscal year
1995. This is the wrong way to go about cutting spending and balancing
the budget. Because of this, I assume that every Member who cosponsored
the A-to-Z petition last year or campaigned for it will vote against
this rule. I don't know how they can possibly justify their vote in
favor of this highly restrictive rule.
Second, this convoluted rule makes it almost impossible to propose
spending shifts. There are many rescissions in this bill that I
support. However, there are many items that I believe it would be a
mistake to cut. However, any Member wishing to offer an amendment to
restore a proposed cut is seriously restricted in any effort to pay for
such a restoration. Because unless the item that Member wants to cut is
in the bill, it cannot be cut at all.
Let me illustrate this point. I will be cosponsoring an amendment to
be offered by Representative Klug to zero out funding for the
Appalachian Regional Commission. The only reason we can offer this
amendment under the rule is that the bill proposed a meager cut of $10
million in this program. However, if the bill did not include this $10
million cut, we would be precluded from offering any amendment at all
to cut funds for this program. This is arbitrary and ridiculous.
The voters sent us here to debate the wisdom of every item of Federal
spending, to weigh competing priorities, and to cut spending in all
programs which can no longer be justified. The rule for H.R. 1158
prohibits this and therefore it should be defeated.
Mr. MOAKLEY. I want to put in the Record a chart showing the
restrictive nature of the floor procedures Republicans have used to
hastily adopt their agenda. Less than one-quarter of the procedures
used have been open despite Republican promises that all contract items
will be considered under open rules.
FLOOR PROCEDURE IN THE 104TH CONGRESS
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Process used for floor Amendments in
Bill No. Title Resolution No. consideration order
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
H.R. 1................. Compliance............. H. Res. 6 Closed...................... None.
H. Res. 6.............. Opening Day Rules H. Res. 5 Closed; contained a closed None.
Package. rule on H.R. 1 within the
closed rule.
H.R. 5................. Unfunded Mandates...... H. Res. 38 Restrictive; Motion adopted N/A.
over Democratic objection
in the Committee of the
Whole to limit debate on
section 4; Pre-printing
gets preference.
H.J. Res. 2............ Balanced Budget........ H. Res. 44 Restrictive; only certain 2R; 4D.
substitutes.
H. Res. 43............. Committee Hearings H. Res. 43 (OJ) Restrictive; considered in N/A.
Scheduling. House no amendments.
H.R. 2................. Line Item Veto......... H. Res. 55 Open; Pre-printing gets N/A.
preference.
H.R. 665............... Victim Restitution Act H. Res. 61 Open; Pre-printing gets N/A.
of 1995. preference.
H.R. 666............... Exclusionary Rule H. Res. 60 Open; Pre-printing gets N/A.
Reform Act of 1995. preference.
H.R. 667............... Violent Criminal H. Res. 63 Restrictive; 10 hr. Time Cap N/A.
Incarceration Act of on amendments.
1995.
H.R. 668............... The Criminal Alien H. Res. 69 Open; Pre-printing gets N/A.
Deportation preference; Contains self-
Improvement Act. executing provision.
H.R. 728............... Local Government Law H. Res. 79 Restrictive; 10 hr. Time Cap N/A.
Enforcement Block on amendments; Pre-printing
Grants. gets preference.
H.R. 7................. National Security H. Res. 83 Restrictive; 10 hr. Time Cap N/A.
Revitalization Act. on amendments; Pre-printing
gets preference.
H.R. 729............... Death Penalty/Habeas... N/A Restrictive; brought up N/A.
under UC with a 6 hr. time
cap on amendments.
S. 2................... Senate Compliance...... N/A Closed; Put on suspension None.
calendar over Democratic
objection.
H.R. 831............... To Permanently Extend H. Res. 88 Restrictive; makes in order 1D.
the Health Insurance only the Gibbons amendment;
Deduction for the Self- waives all points of order;
Employed. Contains self-executing
provision.
H.R. 830............... The Paperwork Reduction H. Res. 91 Open........................ N/A.
Act.
H.R. 889............... Emergency Supplemental/ H. Res. 92 Restrictive; makes in order 1D.
Rescinding Certain only the Obey substitute.
Budget Authority.
H.R. 450............... Regulatory Moratorium.. H. Res. 93 Restrictive; 10 hr. Time Cap N/A.
on amendments; Pre-printing
gets preference.
H.R. 1022.............. Risk Assessment........ H. Res. 96 Restrictive; 10 hr. Time Cap N/A.
on amendments.
H.R. 926............... Regulatory Flexibility. H. Res. 100 Open........................ N/A.
H.R. 925............... Private Property H. Res. 101 Restrictive; 12 hr. Time Cap 1D.
Protection Act. on amendments; Requires
Members to pre-print their
amendments in the Record
prior to the bill's
consideration for
amendment, waives
germaneness and budget act
points of order as well as
points of order concerning
appropriating on a
legislative bill against
the committee substitute
used as base text.
H.R. 1058.............. Securities Litigation H. Res. 103 Restrictive; 8 hr. Time Cap 1D.
Reform Act. on amendments; Pre-printing
gets preference; Makes in
order the Wyden amendment
and waives germaneness
against it.
H.R. 988............... The Attorney H. Res. 104 Restrictive; 7 hr. Time Cap N/A.
Accountability Act of on amendments; Pre-printing
1995. gets preference.
H.R. 956............... Product Liability and H. Res. 109 Restrictive; makes in order 8D; 7R.
Legal Reform Act. only 15 germane amendments
and denies 64 germane
amendments from being
considered.
H.R. 1158.............. Making Emergency H. Res. 115 Restrictive; Combines 3D.
Supplemental emergency H.R. 1158 &
Appropriations and nonemergency 1159 and
Rescissions. strikes the abortion
provision; makes in order
only pre-printed amendments
that include offsets within
the same chapter (deeper
cuts in programs already
cut); waives points of
order against three
amendments; waives cl 2 of
rule XXI against the bill,
cl 2, XXI and cl 7 of rule
XVI against the substitute;
waives cl 2(e) od rule XXI
against the amendments in
the Record; 10 hr time cap
on amendments. 30 minutes
debate on each amendment.
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
**76% restrictive; 24% open. ****Restrictive rules are those which limit the number of amendments which can be
offered, and include so called modified and modified closed rules as well as completely closed rules and rules
providing for consideration in the House as opposed to the Committee of the Whole. This definition of
restrictive rule is taken from the Republican chart of resolutions reported from the Rules Committee in the
103rd Congress. ****Not included in this chart are three bills which should have been placed on the Suspension
Calendar. H.R. 101, H.R. 400, H.R. 440.
Mr. RICHARDSON. Mr. Speaker, this rule is a gag rule. Here are some
facts to clarify to the American people exactly why they lose with this
rule.
This restrictive rule prevents members from offering amendments that
are important for their constituents.
This restrictive rule blocks amendments through arbitrary criteria
not found in any rule of the House. It allows the Republicans to pick
and choose which amendment they want the House to vote on.
This restrictive rule limits debate to 10 hours. Even if the
Republicans allowed a Member's amendment, time could run out.
The bottom line, Mr. Speaker, is that we will soon be voting on a
Republican bill to cut programs which give heat to the elderly, summer
jobs for out youth, and educational television and radio to every
American. This rule protects the contract with wealthy America at the
expense of every middle-class, hard-working American.
I urge my colleagues to vote against this restrictive rule and force
the Rules Committee to bring up an open and fair rule.
Mr. BROWN of California. Mr. Speaker, it used to be that the saying,
``God willing and the creek don't rise'' was a farmer's oath dealing
with the uncertainties of bringing a crop to market. But after the
actions being taken today by the Republican leadership, this oath will
be repeated by every citizen of this country before they take the
Federal Government at its word. Every time the spring rains come hard,
prompting a Federal disaster declaration, Americans across the country
will be asked to pay the bill.
We have never required recision offsets to pay for emergencies such
as the Northridge earthquake or the spring floods in California. We
didn't do it for the midwestern floods and we didn't do it for the
hurricanes that have hit the south and east. We didn't even do it for
the Northridge earthquake payments that have already been made.
Now, the Republican leadership has decided that they will require
offsets, a move that directly contradicts the provisions of the 1990
Budget Act that allow true national emergency payments to go ahead
without offsets being required. By fiat the Republican leadership has
decided to require offsets for the Federal Emergency Management Agency
[FEMA] outlays and did so, not by amending the Budget Act, but in a
February 7, 1995, letter to President Clinton. Democratic Members of
Congress were not consulted, the Governor of California was not
consulted, even the Republican Conference was not consulted. A decision
was unilaterally made by the Republican leadership and we are here
today to pay the price for that decision, without being able to debate
the decision, I might add.
What is most galling about this action is that it was made in the
middle of the effort to repair the damage from the Northridge
earthquake. We are not applying this new policy prospectively, we are
applying it retroactively.
[[Page H3192]] The Republican leadership of the House has, in effect,
broken a contract with the people of California. They have not proposed
an alternative means of dealing with natural disasters, they have not
amended the Budget Act, they have taken no rational steps to address
this problem.
Even more distressing is the fact that the offsets being proposed
total $17.1 billion, the largest rescission bill ever considered by the
House, and all of the money beyond the $5.4 billion for FEMA were going
to fund the tax cut that is being drafted and will be debated early
next month. Then, when they realized they didn't have the votes for
this, the Republican leadership changed their minds and will put the
excess cuts toward deficit reduction. So, nearly $12 billion of the $17
billion in cuts in this bill have nothing to do with the FEMA emergency
request.
Finally, we all recognize that the Senate will not go along with this
approach and even if they should, there is a strong probability that
the President will veto this bill. It is pointless for us to bring this
bill up for a vote. Because the Republican leadership has engaged in a
game of ``chicken'' with the White House, we are all being dragged
along for the ride. We are pitting veterans against the homeless,
putting towns seeking water treatment upgrades against cities seeking
job training programs, and putting the citizens of California against
the rest of the Nation. It is unfair and I hope that the citizens of
California remember who put them in this situation.
I plan to oppose the rule and oppose the bill. I don't want to put
Americans in the situation of having to check the weather reports or
listen to the evening news to see if Mother Nature has canceled their
Government checks. I don't want to be part of a program to fix a
disaster by creating a disaster.
Ms. PELOSI. Mr. Speaker, I am in strong opposition to the rule
governing debate on the Republican rescissions package before the House
today. In my view, the rule, like the bill itself, is unfair.
This rule protects defense spending and spending for special projects
while exposing most Federal programs that assist low-income children
and the elderly poor to excessive cuts.
In particular, I object to the provision that any restoration of
spending proposed for cuts must be offset by another cut in the same
section of the bill. Thus, if we want to restore funding for summer
youth employment for 600,000 disadvantaged youth, we would be asked to
take the money from education programs for other disadvantaged youth.
We could not move money from the star wars program in defense to
restore funding for education programs.
Those of us who would like to restore proposed cuts to public
broadcasting would be forced to take the funds from education for
disadvantaged children. Yet, those Members with extreme amendments,
such as cutting funding for public broadcasting even further, can offer
any amendment they want. But any saving from these amendments can not
be used to restore any important program being cut in the bill. I urge
a no vote on the proposed rule.
Mr. DREIER. Mr. Speaker, with that I urge an ``aye'' vote on this
rule, and I move the previous question on the amendment and the
resolution.
The SPEAKER pro tempore. The question is on the amendment offered by
the gentleman from California [Mr. Dreier].
The question was taken; and the Speaker pro tempore announced that
the ayes appeared to have it.
Mr. MOAKLEY. Mr. Speaker, I object to the vote on the ground that a
quorum is not present and make the point of order that a quorum is not
present.
The SPEAKER pro tempore. Evidently a quorum is not present.
The Sergeant at Arms will notify absent Members.
The vote was taken by electronic device, and there were--yeas 226,
nays 204, not voting 4, as follows:
[Roll No. 237]
YEAS--226
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
Clinger
Coble
Coburn
Collins (GA)
Combest
Cooley
Cox
Crane
Crapo
Cremeans
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
Leach
Lewis (CA)
Lewis (KY)
Lightfoot
Linder
Livingston
LoBiondo
Longley
Lucas
Manzullo
Martini
McCollum
McCrery
McDade
McHugh
McInnis
McIntosh
McKeon
Metcalf
Meyers
Mica
Miller (FL)
Molinari
Moorhead
Morella
Myers
Myrick
Nethercutt
Neumann
Ney
Norwood
Nussle
Oxley
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
Shuster
Skeen
Smith (MI)
Smith (NJ)
Smith (TX)
Smith (WA)
Solomon
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
Whitfield
Wicker
Wolf
Young (AK)
Young (FL)
Zimmer
NAYS--204
Abercrombie
Ackerman
Andrews
Baesler
Baldacci
Barcia
Barrett (WI)
Becerra
Beilenson
Bentsen
Berman
Bevill
Bishop
Bonior
Borski
Boucher
Brewster
Browder
Brown (CA)
Brown (FL)
Brown (OH)
Bryant (TX)
Cardin
Chapman
Clay
Clayton
Clement
Clyburn
Coleman
Collins (IL)
Condit
Conyers
Costello
Coyne
Cramer
Danner
de la Garza
Deal
DeFazio
DeLauro
Dellums
Deutsch
Dicks
Dingell
Dixon
Doggett
Dooley
Doyle
Durbin
Edwards
Engel
Eshoo
Evans
Farr
Fattah
Fazio
Fields (LA)
Filner
Flake
Foglietta
Ford
Frank (MA)
Frost
Furse
Gejdenson
Gephardt
Geren
Gibbons
Gonzalez
Gordon
Green
Gutierrez
Hall (OH)
Hall (TX)
Hamilton
Harman
Hastings (FL)
Hayes
Hefner
Hilliard
Hinchey
Holden
Hoyer
Jackson-Lee
Jacobs
Jefferson
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
Martinez
Mascara
Matsui
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
Rose
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
Tucker
Velazquez
Vento
Visclosky
Volkmer
Ward
Waters
Watt (NC)
Waxman
Williams
Wilson
Wise
Woolsey
Wyden
Wynn
Yates
NOT VOTING--4
Collins (MI)
Cubin
Souder
Zeliff
{time} 1401
The Clerk announced the following pair:
On this vote:
Mrs. Cubin for, with Miss Collins of Michigan against.
Messrs. MILLER of California, BREWSTER, and PETERSON of Minnesota
changed their vote from ``yea'' to ``nay.''
Mr. FRANKS of Connecticut and Mr. FOX of Pennsylvania changed their
vote from ``nay'' to ``yea.''
So the amendment was agreed to.
[[Page H3193]] The result of the vote was announced as above
recorded.
parliamentary inquiries
Mr. MOAKLEY. I have a parliamentary inquiry, Mr. Speaker.
The SPEAKER pro tempore (Mr. Hansen). The gentleman will state his
parliamentary inquiry.
Mr. MOAKLEY. I am just trying to clarify exactly what is happening at
this phase, Mr. Speaker.
There is one more vote on this matter, am I correct, Mr. Speaker?
The SPEAKER pro tempore. On the adoption of the resolution as
amended, one more vote.
Mr. MOAKLEY. Continuing my parliamentary inquiry, Mr. Speaker, the
first vote, the vote we just finished was on the Dreier amendment to
fix up the rule.
The SPEAKER pro tempore. The gentleman is correct; to amend the rule.
Mr. MOAKLEY. Fix up the rule, whatever.
In effect, Republicans voted to deny Mr. Montgomery----
Mr. THOMAS. Regular order, Mr. Speaker.
The SPEAKER pro tempore. The gentleman from Massachusetts [Mr.
Moakley] is not making a parliamentary inquiry.
Mr. Dreier. A parliamentary inquiry, Mr. Speaker----
Mr. MOAKLEY. This is my parliamentary inquiry; Mr. Speaker; Mr.
Speaker, in effect the Republicans voted to deny Mr. Montgomery and
other the chance to divide the question and get a separate vote on----
Mr. THOMAS. A point of order, Mr. Speaker.
The SPEAKER pro tempore. The gentleman is not posing a parliamentary
inquiry.
Does the gentleman from California seek recognition?
Mr. DREIER. Mr. Speaker, may we vote on the rule?
Mr. MOAKLEY. Mr. Speaker, I am still on my parliamentary inquiry.
Mr. DREIER. Mr. Speaker, I moved the previous question on the rule.
Mr. MOAKLEY. Mr. Speaker, I would like to complete my parliamentary
inquiry.
The SPEAKER pro tempore. The gentleman will maintain a proper
parliamentary inquiry, not a statement but an inquiry.
Mr. MOAKLEY. Mr. Speaker, am I correct that the next vote, the vote
we are about to take, is on whether or not to adopt this gag rule?
The SPEAKER pro tempore. The question is on the resolution, as
amended.
The question was taken; and the Speaker pro tempore announced that
the ayes appeared to have it.
recorded vote
Mr. MOAKLEY. Mr. Speaker, I demand a recorded vote
A recorded vote was ordered.
The vote was taken by electronic device, and there were--ayes 242,
noes 190, not voting 2, as follows:
[Roll No. 238]
AYES--242
Allard
Archer
Armey
Bachus
Baesler
Baker (CA)
Baker (LA)
Ballenger
Barr
Barrett (NE)
Bartlett
Barton
Bass
Bateman
Bereuter
Bilbray
Bilirakis
Bliley
Blute
Boehlert
Boehner
Bonilla
Bono
Brewster
Browder
Brownback
Bryant (TN)
Bunn
Bunning
Burr
Burton
Buyer
Callahan
Calvert
Camp
Canady
Castle
Chabot
Chambliss
Chenoweth
Christensen
Chrysler
Clinger
Coble
Coburn
Collins (GA)
Combest
Condit
Cooley
Cox
Crane
Crapo
Cremeans
Cunningham
Danner
Davis
Deal
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 (NJ)
Frelinghuysen
Frisa
Funderburk
Gallegly
Ganske
Gekas
Geren
Gilchrest
Gillmor
Gilman
Goodlatte
Goodling
Goss
Graham
Greenwood
Gunderson
Hall (TX)
Hancock
Hansen
Hastert
Hastings (WA)
Hayes
Hayworth
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
Laughlin
Lazio
Leach
Lewis (CA)
Lewis (KY)
Lightfoot
Lincoln
Linder
Livingston
LoBiondo
Longley
Lucas
Manzullo
Martini
McCollum
McCrery
McDade
McHugh
McInnis
McIntosh
McKeon
Metcalf
Meyers
Mica
Miller (FL)
Minge
Molinari
Moorhead
Morella
Myers
Myrick
Nethercutt
Neumann
Ney
Norwood
Nussle
Oxley
Packard
Parker
Paxon
Payne (VA)
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
Shuster
Sisisky
Skeen
Smith (MI)
Smith (NJ)
Smith (TX)
Smith (WA)
Solomon
Spence
Stearns
Stenholm
Stockman
Stump
Talent
Tanner
Tate
Tauzin
Taylor (NC)
Thomas
Thornberry
Tiahrt
Torkildsen
Upton
Vucanovich
Waldholtz
Walker
Walsh
Wamp
Watts (OK)
Weldon (FL)
Weldon (PA)
Weller
White
Whitfield
Wicker
Wolf
Young (AK)
Young (FL)
Zeliff
Zimmer
NOES--190
Abercrombie
Ackerman
Andrews
Baldacci
Barcia
Barrett (WI)
Becerra
Beilenson
Bentsen
Berman
Bevill
Bishop
Bonior
Boucher
Brown (CA)
Brown (FL)
Brown (OH)
Bryant (TX)
Cardin
Chapman
Clay
Clayton
Clement
Clyburn
Coleman
Collins (IL)
Collins (MI)
Conyers
Costello
Coyne
Cramer
de la Garza
DeFazio
DeLauro
Dellums
Deutsch
Dicks
Dingell
Dixon
Doggett
Dooley
Doyle
Durbin
Edwards
Engel
Eshoo
Evans
Farr
Fattah
Fazio
Fields (LA)
Filner
Flake
Foglietta
Ford
Frank (MA)
Franks (CT)
Frost
Furse
Gejdenson
Gephardt
Gibbons
Gonzalez
Gordon
Green
Gutierrez
Gutknecht
Hall (OH)
Hamilton
Harman
Hastings (FL)
Hefley
Hefner
Hilliard
Hinchey
Holden
Hoyer
Jackson-Lee
Jacobs
Jefferson
Johnson (SD)
Johnson, E. B.
Johnston
Kanjorski
Kaptur
Kennedy (MA)
Kennedy (RI)
Kennelly
Kildee
Kleczka
Klink
LaFalce
Lantos
Levin
Lewis (GA)
Lipinski
Lofgren
Lowey
Luther
Maloney
Manton
Markey
Martinez
Mascara
Matsui
McCarthy
McDermott
McHale
McKinney
McNulty
Meehan
Meek
Menendez
Mfume
Miller (CA)
Mineta
Mink
Moakley
Mollohan
Montgomery
Moran
Murtha
Nadler
Neal
Oberstar
Obey
Olver
Ortiz
Orton
Owens
Pallone
Pastor
Payne (NJ)
Pelosi
Peterson (FL)
Peterson (MN)
Pickett
Pomeroy
Poshard
Rahall
Rangel
Reed
Reynolds
Richardson
Rivers
Roemer
Rose
Roybal-Allard
Rush
Sabo
Sanders
Sawyer
Schroeder
Schumer
Scott
Serrano
Skaggs
Skelton
Slaughter
Souder
Spratt
Stark
Stokes
Studds
Stupak
Taylor (MS)
Tejeda
Thompson
Thornton
Thurman
Torres
Torricelli
Towns
Traficant
Tucker
Velazquez
Vento
Visclosky
Volkmer
Ward
Waters
Watt (NC)
Waxman
Williams
Wilson
Wise
Woolsey
Wyden
Wynn
Yates
NOT VOTING--2
Borski
Cubin
{time} 1423
The Clerk announced the following pair: On this vote:
Mrs. Cubin for, with Mr. Borski against.
So the resolution, as amended, was agreed to.
The result of the vote was announced as above recorded.
A motion to reconsider was laid on the table.
____________________