[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.
  

                          ____________________