Congressional Record, Volume 141 Issue 113 (Thursday, July 13, 1995)

[Congressional Record Volume 141, Number 113 (Thursday, July 13, 1995)]
[House]
[Pages H6925-H6929]
From the Congressional Record Online through the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]

ANNOUNCEMENT BY THE SPEAKER PRO TEMPORE

The SPEAKER pro tempore (Mr. Ewing). Members are reminded they should
refer to each other by State.
Ms. PRYCE. Mr. Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the distinguished
gentleman from Wisconsin [Mr. Gunderson].
(Mr. GUNDERSON asked and was given permission to revise and extend
his remarks.)
Mr. GUNDERSON. Mr. Speaker, I come to the floor today as one of those
Republicans who has consistently supported the arts and the National
Endowment for the Arts. I happen to believe that in an increasingly
intolerant and polarized society, the arts are playing an increasingly
important role, not a diminished role. And what this Congress is doing
has some long-term risks for American society.
Interestingly enough, when I opened my mail this morning, I had a
letter from a constituent where she said, ``In spite of the openly
expressed hostilities to the arts by this Congress, I still urge you to
consider reauthorizing the NEA, at least to give it and the arts world
a chance to reorganize their means of funding and setting of artistic
priorities.''
We are here this morning for a couple of reasons. We are here because
some of my friends on the Democratic side last night decided it was
more important to kill the rule than to preserve a point of order
against the NEA. That is your choice, and I understand that.
We are also here, unfortunately, because I think the arts community
still does not get it. They are convinced that business as usual will
survive. So if we get anything out of this today, I hope we get a
clarion call to the arts community that business as usual will no
longer survive and that we have got a few precious months in order to
get an authorization bill that will allow this funding to go forward
for fiscal year 1996, but, more importantly, to include a provision
that would begin to create the kind of private endowment that would
allow the privatization of the National Endowment for the Arts and the
continued Federal commitment to the arts, albeit one without regular
annual appropriations of the American taxpayer dollars.
{time} 1100

Mr. Speaker, this is not going to be easy. If we want to come even
close to the $167 million we presently appropriation, we would need
well over a $1 billion endowment. We cannot get there from here in 2
years. I want everyone to understand that. That is why I am not all
that excited by the discussions and the tentative understanding of the
agreement in the House among many of our parties, including myself,
last night. However, I would suggest to my colleagues that this is a
start, and we ought to use the weeks and months ahead to make sure we
save the mission so many of us believe in.
Mr. BEILENSON. Mr. Speaker, I yield 5 minutes to the distinguished
gentleman from Wisconsin [Mr. Obey].
Mr. OBEY. Mr. Speaker, before I comment on the pending rule, I do
want to make a few comments that are, I think, required by conscience.
I hope the House will indulge me. The gentleman from Maryland [Mr.
Hoyer] earlier indicated that yesterday we saw Bosnian Serb military
forces in essence commit war crimes in places like Potocari and
Srebrenica.
Mr. Speaker, I have one simple message for Gen. Ratko Mladic and his
associates among the Bosnian Serbian leadership. It is a four-part
message. You are sick pigs. You are sick pigs. You are an embarrassment
to the human race. If the world has any conscience, you will one day be
where you belong, in prison, rather than disgracing the military
uniform that you wear.
Having said that, Mr. Speaker, I would now like to move on to the
matter before us. This rule is really, in many ways, worse than the
rule before us last night. It still violates normal House rules in
order to allow a continued onslaught on environmental protection and
reversal of environmental progress made by previous Congresses.
The bill, as has been mentioned by the gentleman from California [Mr.
Miller] permits giving away
Bureau of Mine facilities. The bill repeals the Outer Banks Protection
Act of 1990. The bill includes Columbia River basin ecoregion
assessment restrictions and directions which should not be in this
bill. The bill reverses the progress that this Congress made last year
in establishing the California Desert Act. In general, it contains many
legislative provisions that should not be in a spending bill.

It also establishes a distinction between the arts and other
unauthorized legislation which I think is both primitive and unfair.
What is going on is simply this: The extreme conservatives on the
Republican side of the aisle last night used their leverage which they
had on the rule to try to further disadvantage the possibility for
future funding for the arts.
I would say to our Republican moderate friends who claim to be
supporters of the arts that they can stop this onslaught on the arts by
voting against this rule, and insisting that the arts be treated
precisely the same as other unauthorized programs in this bill. That is
all they have to do. That is all they have to do.
They can then bring a bill to the floor which will allow us to have
the normal debates on all of these programs without creating a special
disadvantage for a tiny little program which has fallen victim both to
the extremists of the right and to some of the extreme artists, that
very tiny, uncivilized minority, who have, because of their
thoughtlessness and their stupidity, allowed the enemies of arts
funding to attack the entire program the Maplethorpes of this world, if
you want, being joined in their extremism by the extremists on the
other side, who together want to savage a program which is meant to
increase the civility of this society by just a little bit.
Therefore, Mr. Speaker, I would urge Members to vote against this
rule one more time, send it back to the Committee on Rules. The
Committee on Rules can do it right. It does not have to continue the
onslaught on environmental legislation. It does not have to play this
double standard game. We can pass a bill which is far more balanced and
a product that is better than the one before us.
Ms. PRYCE. Mr. Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.
Mr. BEILENSON. Mr. Speaker, I yield 3 minutes to the gentleman from
Vermont [Mr. Sanders].
Mr. SANDERS. Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentleman for yielding time to
me.
Mr. Speaker, the rule that we have before us could very well begin
the process of ending the funding for the National Endowment for the
Arts. I

[[Page H 6926]]
stand in complete opposition to the rule and to the bill.
Mr. Speaker, let us get our priorities straight and let us try to
understand what this country is supposed to stand for. Art and culture
are a vital part of human existence. The opportunity to enjoy the arts,
to enjoy culture, must be open to all of our people, and not just those
who can afford $100 for a concert ticket.
Mr. Speaker, the United States spends only 64 cents per person to
support the arts endowment, 64 cents, 50 times less than our major
allies. In contrast, we spend over $1,000 per person on the military,
far more than our allies. Why is it that this Congress can lower taxes
on the wealthiest people in America, do away with taxes for the largest
corporations in America, but eliminate programs which bring art and
culture into classrooms in the State of Vermont and all over this
country? Why is it that this Congress can pour billions of dollars more
into B-2 bombers that the Pentagon tells us that do not need, but we
cut back on funding for symphony orchestras and threater groups all
over America?
Mr. Speaker, I would remind our colleagues that one B-2 bomber costs
$1.5 billion, 10 times the entire allocation for the National Endowment
for the Arts. The entire endowment is 10 percent of one B-2 bomber, a
B-2 bomber that the Pentagon tells us they do not need.
Mr. Speaker, where are our priorities? Let us speak up for the kids
in this country. Let us speak up for all of the people who appreciate
the arts, who appreciate culture. Let us defeat this rule.
Ms. PRYCE. Mr. Speaker, I yield such time as he may consume to the
gentleman from the great State of Ohio [Mr. Regula], my great friend,
and distinguished chairman of the Subcommittee on Interior of the
Committee on Appropriations.
Mr. REGULA. I thank the gentlewoman from the great State of Ohio. I
want to commend the Committee on Rules for trying to bring out a
balanced rule, recognizing there are a great number of differences of
opinion as to how we should address this.
Mr. Speaker, I would urge all the Members to support this rule. I
recognize that because we had to take over a 10 percent cut, we cannot
do everything that people would like to do. Nevertheless, we have done
the best we could. We have been fair. I think it is a balanced bill,
and I would certainly urge Members to support the rule so we can get on
with the business.
Mr. Speaker, we have to keep in mind that the budget resolution has
been adopted by both houses. This bill is responsive to that. I think
it represents a commonsense addressing of that.
Mr. Speaker, we mentioned volunteers earlier. We will get into this
more in general debate, but I would point out that there are a couple
hundred thousand volunteers, and they will continue to be there in all
the agencies of Interior. We can talk about that more later.
Let me say to the Members, my colleagues, that I know all of them are
anxious to get out today. If we work at this with goodwill on both
sides, I think there will be plenty of opportunity to debate the
fundamental policy questions.
Under the Constitution we are charged with the responsibility to make
policy for the people of the United States. It is the responsibility of
the President and his team to execute that policy. There will be a
number of amendments here that represent policy issues. Some I may
agree with, some I may not. That is why we have votes.
As I said earlier, Mr. Speaker, if we all work at it and take a
goodwill approach, we can get out of here at a decent time and finish
this bill. I am not going to take more time. I will not take a lot of
time in general debate. I know we are all anxious to get ahead.
One last comment. That is that this is an appropriations bill. We do
not do the authorizing. We communicated with the authorities as much as
possible, and anything that is in here represents a consensus with
authorizing committees in the House. However, basically, it is a bill
to determine how much we are going to spend on the programs that have
been established by the authorizing committees.
There will be an opportunity to vote on every dollar that is in the
bill. People can offer amendments to cut or add to, and these will be
subject to a vote. So as the chairman of the Committee on Rules said
earlier, it is really an open rule. All the Members will have an
opportunity through their votes to establish what they think are
responsible policies for the administration of the public lands of this
Nation: about one-third of the United States; it is owned by the people
of this country, along with energy policies; along with policies
affecting the Bureau of Indian Affairs, our responsibility to the
native Americans; and a number of others. I think it is a perfect
example of how our democracy should work.
We are representatives of the people. That is our title. We will have
an opportunity to take care of that role today on the amendments and on
the bill itself. I urge the Members to support the rule so we can get
on with this and finish it in a timely hour today.
Mr. BEILENSON. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may
consume.
Mr. Speaker, since the rule itself executes a provision relating to
the NEA appropriations level, I wonder if at this point I might ask the
gentlewoman from Ohio, or perhaps through her, either the gentleman
from Ohio or the distinguished chairman of the Committee on Rules, if
it is her understanding that the self-executing provision in the rule
will permit the appropriation of some amount of funding for the NEA,
regardless of the level of funding provided in the authorization bill.
In other words, if the authorization bill provides less than the $99
million contained in this appropriations bill, will that lower
authorized amount be appropriated, or will the funding for NEA be
appropriated only if the authorization bill also provides for an
appropriation of $99 million, the exact amount provided in this bill?
Ms. PRYCE. Mr. Chairman, will the gentleman yield?
Mr. BEILENSON. I yield to the gentlewoman from Ohio.
Ms. PRYCE. Mr. Speaker, I believe we have had a ruling from the
Parliamentarian.
Mr. BEILENSON. I yield to my colleague, the gentleman from Ohio [Mr.
Regula].
Mr. REGULA. I thank the gentleman for yielding.
Mr. Speaker, it is my understanding from the Parliamentarian that the
authorizing bill would have to conform to the appropriation bill in the
exact amount, and otherwise, it would eliminate the appropriation
totally, so I think it is important that in coming with an authorizing
bill, that it be consistent with what we are appropriating in this
bill.
Mr. BEILENSON. I thank the gentleman for his response. I think it is
different from the understanding we had last night and the arrangement
you folks on that side of the aisle worked out. In other words, if the
authorizing bill provides for any amount less than the $99 million,
even if it is $97 million, that amount would not be appropriated under
this bill.
Mr. REGULA. That is my understanding from the Parliamentarian, if the
gentleman will continue to yield, that is correct.
Mr. YATES. Mr. Speaker, will the gentleman yield?
Mr. BEILENSON. I yield to the gentleman from Illinois.
{time} 1115

Mr. YATES. Does the arrangement respecting the appropriation to which
you addressed yourself have the approval of the chairman of the
authorizing committee of the House?
Mr. REGULA. If the gentleman from California who has the time will
yield, members of the authorizing committee were a party to working out
the rule, so I think the answer would be yes.
Mr. BEILENSON. If I may further pursue this, why are we treating this
in a different manner than we usually treat appropriations? Ordinarily
at least, a lower authorization would appropriate a certain amount of
money if the Committee on Appropriations, as in this case, provided a
higher amount.
Is there some particular reason for this that anybody can tell us
about?
Ms. PRYCE. Mr. Speaker, if the gentleman will yield, I differ with
the Parliamentarian's interpretation of this and I think it is just a
matter of how it comes down to interpretation in the long run. I am not
sure the intention

[[Page H 6927]]
was there at the beginning. But the intention is to authorize in the
amount that was provided for here.
Mr. BEILENSON. I appreciate the gentlewoman's response and also the
gentleman's response. I simply want to point out to our colleagues and
to the friends of the NEA, this is a little bit more complex and
perhaps dicey situation, the one perhaps we are in, because it is
dependent upon an authorization being exactly the same as the
appropriation in this bill and any lower amount would result in no
appropriation whatsoever for the NEA in the coming year; is that
correct?
Mr. REGULA. If the gentleman will yield further, I want to say, the
leadership on our side of the aisle has endorsed this and understands
that. So I think that for those that are interested in the NEA, and
that is what you are getting to, they can anticipate that we will be
consistent on the authorization and the appropriation.
As the gentleman noted, it is self-enacting in that it limits the
expenditure of funds in NEA to institutional grants. Of course I think
that addresses the problem that the gentleman from Wisconsin [Mr. Obey]
discussed earlier in his remarks about some of the individual grants
that have caused the NEA to have some problems.
Mr. BEILENSON. I appreciate the gentleman's response. It makes us
feel a little bit better.
Mr. YATES. Mr. Speaker, if the gentleman will yield further, suppose
the other body does not agree with what is being provided as self-
operating in this rule. Suppose the other body wants to change it, and
the conference wants to change it. That can be done, can it not?
Mr. REGULA. If the gentleman from California will yield, obviously we
will be part of the conference, and I think, at least I have to speak
for myself, as a conferee I fully intend to respect the House's
position and maintain it in a conference. Because I think we have an
obligation to those who vote for the rule today to do that. I want to
say right up front that conferees will be instructed to stay with the
House amount, and that is exactly what we plan to do.
The SPEAKER pro tempore (Mr. Ewing). The time of the gentleman from
California [Mr. Beilenson] has expired.
Mr. BEILENSON. Mr. Speaker, this is an unusual request, but I wonder
if our friends on the other side might yield us an additional 2\1/2\
minutes just to pursue this matter for a very short while because it is
of some importance.
Ms. PRYCE. Mr. Speaker, I yield 2\1/2\ additional minutes to my
friend, the gentleman from California.
Mr. BEILENSON. Mr. Speaker, if I may ask just one follow-up question
for the gentleman from Ohio. I thank the gentlewoman very, very much.
With respect to the gentleman's response to the distinguished
gentleman from Illinois, the only requirements of the rule before us
has to do with the passage by the House of Representatives of a bill
authorizing a certain amount.
I can only assume, and please tell us if I am correct in this, that
once we get past the House authorization of an NEA appropriation for
next year, let us assume it is the same amount as is included in this
bill, that is all right. That is, whatever is determined finally in
conference committee would in fact be authorized under a bill which
might have a different amount?
Mr. REGULA. In response to the gentleman, let me just say that it is
our every intention to respect the amount that is in the appropriation
bill when we go to conference and, second, that will be in the
authorizing bill.
Mr. BEILENSON. The principal point here is that if the $99 million is
provided for in the bill, in the authorizing bill passed by this House,
then that
money, whatever eventual amount of money is decided upon can in fact
be appropriated so long as it is within those parameters?

Mr. REGULA. Yes.
Mr. BEILENSON. I thank the gentleman for his response and the
gentlewoman for her great kindness.
Mr. YATES. Mr. Speaker, if the gentleman will yield further, may I
ask the gentleman a question: What happens if the authorizing committee
of the other body does not agree and in their conference they come to a
different conclusion than, as you say, the authorizing committee in the
House?
Mr. REGULA. If the gentleman from California will yield further, the
answer is that we made it subject only to the authorization by the
House and not be the other body.
Mr. YATES. Does that mean that you have frozen the other body, you
have compelled the other body to adhere to whatever you put into this
rule?
Mr. REGULA. That will be the bottom line in a conference, I would say
to the gentleman.
Mr. YATES. But there is another conference that is coming along and
that is on the authorizing committee, as well.
Mr. REGULA. That is correct.
Mr. YATES. So they cannot deviate from this is what you are saying?
Mr. REGULA. I think that our conferees on an authorization bill will
feel obligated to hold to the amount that we have agreed upon in this
appropriation.
Mr. YATES. Suppose the other body does not agree with you on this.
That means that the whole thing may explode?
Mr. REGULA. I will respond to the gentleman by saying that that will
be an interesting conference.
Mr. YATES. We may wind up with no bill, then.
Mr. REGULA. I hesitate to predict what might happen in this body. We
can only deal with the circumstances before us today.
Mr. BEILENSON. Mr. Speaker, again I thank the gentlewoman for her
courteous generosity.
I urge a ``no'' vote on the previous question in which if it is
defeated I will offer an amendment to the rule which would make in
order the lock box amendment and also strike the unusual restriction on
NEA funding that we have just been discussing.
The SPEAKER pro tempore. The time of the gentleman from California
[Mr. Beilenson] has again expired.
Ms. PRYCE. Mr. Speaker, I yield 3 minutes to the gentleman from
California [Mr. Dreier], my colleague on the Committee on Rules.
Mr. DREIER. Mr. Speaker, I thank my friend for yielding me the time.
I want to again congratulate her on superb management of this rule.
It is a little easier today than it was last night, I will acknowledge,
because we have, I believe, come to an agreement which will clearly be
acceptable to a majority of this House.
Mr. Speaker, many of us have tried for a number of years to delete
taxpayer funding of the National Endowment for the Arts, and that is
obviously one of the major items of real controversy here. I will
acknowledge there are other items that are very, very important in this
measure, but the NEA on our side of the aisle especially has been a
very, very contentious point.
We are going to, under this open rule, have an opportunity to in fact
zero out the National Endowment for the Arts. As the gentleman from
Illinois [Mr. Crane] has offered that amendment in the past, he will
have the chance to offer it again today when we proceed with the
measure.
I believe that there is a very important signal that has been
received. I will acknowledge that there was a little bump in the road
last night when we did not quite get a majority vote for this rule, but
this has been a very well thought out compromise which, as my friend
from Illinois has just raised, in fact, insists that conferees on our
side of the aisle adhere to the constraints that have been outlined in
our proposal.
This is an open rule. It allows for the kinds of amendments that
Members want to offer. I hope very much that we can now proceed and
move as expeditiously as possible through this appropriations process,
because we are trying desperately to maintain the kind of openness that
we proposed at the beginning of this Congress. I believe this bill will
be another great example of that.
Ms. PRYCE. Mr. Speaker, I urge adoption of this rule. It will get us
back on track. It will give this body the healthy deliberation it needs
on these issues.
Mr. Speaker, I yield back the balance of my time, and I move the
previous question on the resolution.
The SPEAKER pro tempore. The question is on ordering the previous
question.
The question was taken; and the Speaker pro tempore announced that
the ayes appeared to have it.

[[Page H 6928]]

Mr. BEILENSON. 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 notice absent Members.
The vote was taken by electronic device, and there were--yeas 230,
nays 194, not voting 10, as follows:

[Roll No. 498]

YEAS--230

Allard
Archer
Armey
Bachus
Baker (CA)
Baker (LA)
Ballenger
Barr
Barrett (NE)
Bartlett
Barton
Bass
Bateman
Bereuter
Bilbray
Bilirakis
Bishop
Bliley
Blute
Boehlert
Boehner
Bonilla
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
Cubin
Cunningham
Davis
Deal
DeLay
Diaz-Balart
Doolittle
Dornan
Dreier
Duncan
Dunn
Ehlers
Ehrlich
Emerson
English
Ensign
Everett
Ewing
Fawell
Flanagan
Foley
Fowler
Fox
Franks (CT)
Franks (NJ)
Frelinghuysen
Frisa
Funderburk
Gallegly
Ganske
Gekas
Gilchrest
Gillmor
Gilman
Goodlatte
Goodling
Goss
Graham
Greenwood
Gunderson
Gutknecht
Hall (TX)
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
Laughlin
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
Parker
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
Souder
Spence
Stearns
Stockman
Stump
Talent
Tate
Taylor (NC)
Thomas
Thornberry
Tiahrt
Torkildsen
Upton
Vucanovich
Waldholtz
Walker
Walsh
Wamp
Watts (OK)
Weldon (FL)
Weldon (PA)
Weller
White
Whitfield
Wicker
Wolf
Young (AK)
Young (FL)
Zeliff
Zimmer

NAYS--194

Abercrombie
Ackerman
Baesler
Baldacci
Barcia
Barrett (WI)
Becerra
Beilenson
Bentsen
Berman
Bevill
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
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)
Hamilton
Harman
Hastings (FL)
Hayes
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)
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
Mollohan
Montgomery
Moran
Murtha
Nadler
Neal
Oberstar
Obey
Olver
Ortiz
Orton
Owens
Pallone
Pastor
Payne (NJ)
Payne (VA)
Pelosi
Peterson (FL)
Peterson (MN)
Pickett
Pomeroy
Poshard
Rahall
Rangel
Reed
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
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--10

Andrews
Bono
Collins (MI)
Dickey
Fields (TX)
Forbes
Hefner
Moakley
Reynolds
Tauzin

{time} 1144

Mr. JACOBS changed his vote from ``yea'' to ``nay.''
Mr. COBLE changed his vote from ``nay'' to ``yea.''
So the previous question was ordered.
The result of the vote was announced as above recorded.
The SPEAKER pro tempore (Mr. Ewing). The question is on the
resolution.
The question was taken; and the Speaker pro tempore announced that
the ayes appeared to have it.

recorded vote

Mr. BEILENSON. Mr. Speaker, I demand a recorded vote.
A recorded vote was ordered.
The vote was taken by electronic device, and there were--ayes 229,
noes 195, not voting 10, as follows:

[Roll No 499]

AYES--229

Allard
Archer
Armey
Bachus
Baker (CA)
Baker (LA)
Ballenger
Barr
Barrett (NE)
Bartlett
Barton
Bass
Bateman
Bereuter
Bilbray
Bilirakis
Bishop
Bliley
Blute
Boehlert
Boehner
Bonilla
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
Cubin
Cunningham
Davis
Deal
DeLay
Diaz-Balart
Dickey
Doolittle
Dornan
Dreier
Duncan
Dunn
Ehlers
Ehrlich
Emerson
English
Ensign
Everett
Ewing
Fawell
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
Hall (TX)
Hancock
Hansen
Hastert
Hastings (WA)
Hayworth
Hefley
Heineman
Herger
Hilleary
Hobson
Hoekstra
Hoke
Horn
Hostettler
Houghton
Hunter
Hutchinson
Hyde
Inglis
Istook
Jacobs
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
Linder
Livingston
LoBiondo
Longley
Lucas
Manzullo
Martini
McCollum
McCrery
McDade
McHugh
McIntosh
McKeon
Metcalf
Meyers
Mica
Miller (FL)
Molinari
Moorhead
Morella
Myers
Myrick
Nethercutt
Ney
Norwood
Nussle
Oxley
Packard
Parker
Paxon
Petri
Pombo
Porter
Portman
Pryce
Quillen
Quinn
Radanovich
Ramstad
Regula
Riggs
Roberts
Rogers
Rohrabacher
Ros-Lehtinen
Roth
Salmon
Sanford
Saxton
Scarborough
Schaefer
Schiff
Seastrand
Sensenbrenner
Shadegg
Shaw
Shays
Shuster
Skeen
Smith (MI)
Smith (NJ)
Smith (TX)
Smith (WA)
Solomon
Souder
Spence
Stearns
Stockman
Stump
Talent
Tate
Taylor (NC)
Thomas
Thornberry
Tiahrt
Torkildsen
Traficant
Upton
Vucanovich
Waldholtz
Walker
Walsh
Wamp
Watts (OK)
Weldon (FL)
Weldon (PA)
Weller
White
Whitfield
Wicker
Wolf
Young (AK)
Zeliff
Zimmer

NOES--195

[[Page H 6929]]

Fattah
Fazio
Fields (LA)
Filner
Flake
Foglietta
Ford
Frank (MA)
Frost
Gejdenson
Gephardt
Geren
Gibbons
Gonzalez
Gordon
Green
Gutierrez
Hall (OH)
Hamilton
Harman
Hastings (FL)
Hayes
Hilliard
Hinchey
Holden
Hoyer
Jackson-Lee
Jefferson
Johnson (SD)
Johnson, E. B.
Johnston
Kanjorski
Kaptur
Kennedy (MA)
Kennedy (RI)
Kennelly
Kildee
Kleczka
Klink
LaFalce
Lantos
Levin
Lewis (GA)
Lincoln
Lipinski
Lofgren
Lowey
Luther
Maloney
Manton
Markey
Martinez
Mascara
Matsui
McCarthy
McDermott
McHale
McInnis
McKinney
McNulty
Meehan
Meek
Menendez
Mfume
Miller (CA)
Mineta
Minge
Mink
Mollohan
Montgomery
Moran
Murtha
Nadler
Neal
Neumann
Oberstar
Obey
Olver
Ortiz
Orton
Owens
Pallone
Pastor
Payne (NJ)
Payne (VA)
Pelosi
Peterson (FL)
Peterson (MN)
Pickett
Pomeroy
Poshard
Rahall
Rangel
Reed
Richardson
Rivers
Roemer
Rose
Roukema
Roybal-Allard
Royce
Rush
Sabo
Sanders
Sawyer
Schroeder
Schumer
Scott
Serrano
Sisisky
Skaggs
Skelton
Slaughter
Spratt
Stark
Stenholm
Stokes
Studds
Stupak
Tanner
Taylor (MS)
Tejeda
Thompson
Thornton
Thurman
Torres
Torricelli
Towns
Tucker
Velazquez
Vento
Visclosky
Volkmer
Ward
Waters
Watt (NC)
Waxman
Williams
Wilson
Wise
Woolsey
Wyden
Wynn
Yates

NOT VOTING--10

Andrews
Bono
Collins (MI)
Fields (TX)
Furse
Hefner
Moakley
Reynolds
Tauzin
Young (FL)

{time} 1202

Mr. STUPAK changed his vote from ``aye'' to ``no.''
So the resolution was agreed to.
The result of the vote was announced as above recorded.
A motion to reconsider was laid on the table.

____________________