[Congressional Record Volume 141, Number 184 (Saturday, November 18, 1995)]
[House]
[Pages H13312-H13318]
From the Congressional Record Online through the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]




                ANNOUNCEMENT BY THE SPEAKER PRO TEMPORE

  The SPEAKER pro tempore. Members are advised not to conduct straw 
polls in the House.
  Mr. McINNIS. Mr. Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from 
California [Mr. Bono].
  (Mr. BONO asked and was given permission to revise and extend his 
remarks.)
  Mr. BONO. Mr. Speaker, you know, I came here because I did not 
understand all this rhetoric that is going on. I still do not 
understand it. For one, you hear about education, ``the backs of 
education.'' The very truth of the matter is simple: Education in this 
country stinks. It is that simple. Now, I do not understand why we 
would pour more money at a lousy educational system and get the results 
that we are getting. But we are saying we are taking education away.
  We are not. I cannot send my kids to a public school. It is so lousy, 
I would not dare abuse my children. So that is just a bunch of 
nonsense. Education, they had better reform it. So we are not doing 
anything on the backs of education.
  Now, see, as an average guy, I would say, why did the President come 
up here and why did I sit here and hear him say ``Let's use CBO 
numbers?''

                              {time} 1100

  Why did he say that? Has anyone said why he said that? Why did he say 
use CBO numbers? I do not understand. He said that. I guess the kindest 
thing to say is he was not telling the truth when he said that.
  Look, my colleagues, here is the issue. We have to balance this 
budget. Otherwise, we hit a wall going 180 miles an hour. It is not as 
complicated as all this rhetoric that we hear by these expert 
politicians. It is we must balance the budget.
  Now, if they wanted to balance the budget, they had 40 years to 
balance the budget. We are now confronting that issue. We cannot back 
down from that.
  Mr. McINNIS. Mr. Speaker, I ask for a report on time.
  The SPEAKER pro tempore (Mr. Goodlatte). The gentleman from Colorado 
[Mr. McInnis] has 12 minutes remaining and the gentleman from 
Massachusetts [Mr. Moakley] has 11\1/2\ minutes remaining.
  Mr. McINNIS. Mr. Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.
  Mr. MOAKLEY. Mr. Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from 
Illinois [Mr. Durbin].
  Mr. DURBIN. Mr. Speaker, I was in my office this morning watching the 
proceedings of the House, and it brought to mind a movie which I liked 
very much, called ``Groundhog Day'' with Bill Murray. Every time the 
clock radio went off in that movie, on would come the former speaker, 
Congressman Bono, singing ``I Got You, Babe.'' No matter what morning 
came along, every morning the same song was playing on the clock radio.
  That is what is going on on the House floor here. It strikes me that 
the political rhetoric in this debate is getting repetitive, tired, and 
sad. Members are getting short-tempered because we are making no 
progress whatsoever. The Republicans insist they are saving America. We 
Democrats think they are savaging America. Speaker Gingrich thinks the 
idea of a 7-year balanced budget came to him in a dream. We think it 
could turn out to be an economic nightmare.
  Frankly, what is in store for us here is to finally put aside some of 
this hot rhetoric, sit down, Democrats and Republicans, President and 
congressional leaders, and get this mess resolved.
  Were we not sent to Washington to solve problems? I think we were. 
What we see here is a lot of pettiness, a lot of vitriol, and, frankly, 
very little progress.

  The saddest part of it all is that there are some real victims in 
this political debate. Seven hundred thousand Federal employees as of 
Monday will still be on the streets without pay; 700,000 people being 
held hostage to this kind of political debate. That is outrageous.
  It is nothing short of outrageous as well that while these people are 
on the streets without pay Members of Congress will still get their 
paychecks. How can we send these people home without pay while Members 
of Congress still get paid?
  That is why I have introduced no budget, no pay. It says to Members 
of Congress, if we are serious about turning people out on the streets 
without a paycheck, cut off the machine that writes our paychecks. And 
Members know what will happen. We will not take this 48-hour 
adjournment recess the Republicans have proposed. We will stay here and 
do the job as we should. Get it done.
  Mr. McINNIS. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume 
to say to the gentleman there is nothing that prevents him from going 
ahead and doing the pilot project and not taking his check.
  Mr. DURBIN. Mr. Speaker, will the gentleman yield?
  Mr. McINNIS. No; I will not.
  Mr. DURBIN. Will the gentleman yield?
  Mr. McINNIS. Regular order of the House, Mr. Speaker.
  The SPEAKER pro tempore. The House will be in order. The gentleman 
from Colorado has the time, and he can choose whether or not to yield. 
He does not choose to yield.
  The gentleman is recognized.
  Mr. McINNIS. Mr. Speaker, the second thing I would ask the preceding 
speaker is to amend his bill so that it includes the President of the 
United States; and the third thing that I would mention to the previous 
speaker is he talks about 700,000 Federal employees, and my bet is that 
these people will, while they are furloughed, they will be paid for 
that period of time.


                         parliamentary inquiry

  Mr. DURBIN. Mr. Speaker, parliamentary inquiry.
  The SPEAKER pro tempore. Members will suspend. The Members are 
advised that the time used by the floor manager in commenting on the 
substance of the debate is counted against his time.
  Mr. DURBIN. I thank the Speaker.
  The SPEAKER pro tempore. The gentleman from Colorado may proceed.
  Mr. McINNIS. Again, Mr. Speaker, to the previous speaker, the 
gentleman talks about 700,000 so-called hostages, Federal employees who 
will be paid while they are on this furlough, but he continually, every 
day that there is a speech by the gentleman, he continually fails to 
mention that 230 or 260 million people in this country are held hostage 
by the deficit, which is accumulating at $30 million an hour.
  Mr. Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to my friend, the gentleman from 
Florida [Mr. Mica].
  Mr. MICA. Mr. Speaker, we are really here to end the sham, the scam. 
If Members will recall when Bill Clinton, before he was President, I 
saw him with my own eyes. I have a little bit of nearsightedness, but I 
saw him, I heard him. I am not visually or hearing impaired, and I 
heard him. He was running for office, and he promised to balance, he 
would submit a plan to balance the budget in 5 years. We heard him.
  Now, I am sure you have seen the recent commercial. We also have Bill 
Clinton saying, I think it can be done. Well, it can. First of all, it 
can be done in 7 years. That is May 1995. Then we heard 10 years, then 
we heard 9 years and 8 years. . . .
  Mr. HOYER. Objection, Mr. Speaker.
  Mr. MICA. We are going to nail down the balanced budget.
  Mr. HOYER. Mr. Speaker, I ask the gentleman's words be taken down.
  Mr. McINNIS. Regular order, Mr. Speaker.
  Mr. HOYER. Under the rules, the gentleman cannot say any more. 

[[Page H 13313]]

  The SPEAKER pro tempore. The gentleman from Florida will be seated.

                              {time}  1110

  Mr. MICA. Mr. Speaker, I would state for the Record that my words in 
fact were referring to the budget, and at no time would I refer to the 
President, and I ask unanimous consent that they be stricken.
  Mr. HOYER. Mr. Speaker, the words of the gentleman have been taken 
down. I demand regular order.
  The SPEAKER pro tempore (Mr. Goodlatte). Does the gentleman ask 
unanimous consent to withdraw his words?
  Mr. MICA. Yes, I do, I ask unanimous consent.
  The SPEAKER pro tempore. Is there objection to the request of the 
gentleman from Florida?
  Mr. HOYER. Mr. Speaker, I object.
  Mr. MICA. Mr. Speaker, I would gladly apologize.
  Mr. HOYER. Mr. Speaker, regular order.
  Mr. OBEY. Mr. Speaker, the gentleman is supposed to sit down until 
the words have been taken down.
  The SPEAKER pro tempore. That is correct. The Clerk will report the 
words objected to.
  The Clerk read as follows:

       We heard him now, I am sure you have seen the recent 
     commercial. We also have Bill Clinton saying, I think it can 
     be done. Well, it can be done, first of all it can be done in 
     7 years. That is May 1995. Then we heard him in 10 years, 
     then we heard 9 years, and 8 years. Well, my colleagues, we 
     are here to nail the little bugger down, and that is the 
     purpose of this.

  The SPEAKER pro tempore. In the opinion of the Chair, there is an 
improper reference to the President of the United States and the 
remarks are not in order.
  Without objection, the words are stricken from the record.
  There was no objection.
  Without objection, the gentleman may proceed in order.
  Mr. HOYER. We will object, Mr. Speaker.
  The SPEAKER pro tempore. Objection is heard.
  Mr. McINNIS. Mr. Speaker, I reclaim my time.


                         parliamentary inquiry

  Mr. SCHUMER. Mr. Speaker, parliamentary inquiry.
  The SPEAKER pro tempore. The gentleman from New York will state it.
  Mr. SCHUMER. If the gentleman from Florida's words are taken down, 
are not his privileges on the floor suspended for the day?
  The SPEAKER pro tempore. The privilege of debate for the gentleman 
would be suspended unless the House permits the gentleman to proceed in 
order.
  For what purpose does the gentleman from Texas rise?
  Mr. DeLAY. Mr. Speaker, I move that the House allow the gentleman to 
speak for the rest of the day.
  The SPEAKER pro tempore. The question is on the motion offered by the 
gentleman from Texas [Mr. DeLay] to allow the gentleman from Florida 
[Mr. Mica] to proceed in order.
  The question was taken; and the Speaker pro tempore announced that 
the noes appeared to have it.
  Mr. LINDER. 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 199, 
nays 189, answered ``present'' 26, not voting 18, as follows:

                             [Roll No. 816]

                               YEAS--199

     Allard
     Archer
     Armey
     Baker (CA)
     Ballenger
     Barr
     Barrett (NE)
     Barton
     Bass
     Bateman
     Bereuter
     Bilbray
     Bilirakis
     Bliley
     Boehlert
     Boehner
     Bonilla
     Bono
     Brownback
     Bryant (TN)
     Bunn
     Bunning
     Burton
     Buyer
     Callahan
     Calvert
     Canady
     Chabot
     Chambliss
     Chenoweth
     Christensen
     Chrysler
     Clement
     Clinger
     Coble
     Coburn
     Collins (GA)
     Combest
     Cooley
     Costello
     Cox
     Crane
     Crapo
     Cremeans
     Cubin
     Cunningham
     Deal
     DeLay
     Diaz-Balart
     Dickey
     Doggett
     Doolittle
     Dreier
     Duncan
     Dunn
     Ehrlich
     Emerson
     English
     Ensign
     Everett
     Ewing
     Fawell
     Fields (TX)
     Flanagan
     Foley
     Forbes
     Fowler
     Fox
     Frank (MA)
     Franks (CT)
     Frisa
     Funderburk
     Gallegly
     Ganske
     Gekas
     Gephardt
     Gilchrest
     Gillmor
     Gilman
     Goodlatte
     Goss
     Graham
     Greenwood
     Gutknecht
     Hall (TX)
     Hancock
     Hansen
     Hastert
     Hastings (WA)
     Hayworth
     Hefley
     Heineman
     Herger
     Hilleary
     Hoke
     Hostettler
     Houghton
     Hunter
     Hutchinson
     Hyde
     Inglis
     Istook
     Johnson (CT)
     Johnson, Sam
     Jones
     Kasich
     Kelly
     Kim
     King
     Kingston
     Klug
     Knollenberg
     Kolbe
     LaHood
     Largent
     Latham
     Laughlin
     Lazio
     Lewis (CA)
     Lewis (KY)
     Lightfoot
     Linder
     Lucas
     Manzullo
     McCollum
     McDade
     McHugh
     McInnis
     McIntosh
     McKeon
     Metcalf
     Meyers
     Mica
     Miller (FL)
     Molinari
     Moorhead
     Myrick
     Norwood
     Nussle
     Packard
     Paxon
     Pombo
     Porter
     Portman
     Quillen
     Radanovich
     Ramstad
     Regula
     Riggs
     Roberts
     Rogers
     Ros-Lehtinen
     Roth
     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
     Tauzin
     Taylor (NC)
     Thomas
     Thornberry
     Tiahrt
     Torkildsen
     Upton
     Vucanovich
     Waldholtz
     Walker
     Walsh
     Watt (NC)
     Watts (OK)
     Weldon (FL)
     Weller
     White
     Whitfield
     Young (AK)
     Young (FL)
     Zeliff

                               NAYS--189

     Abercrombie
     Ackerman
     Andrews
     Baesler
     Baldacci
     Barcia
     Becerra
     Beilenson
     Bentsen
     Berman
     Bevill
     Bishop
     Bonior
     Borski
     Boucher
     Browder
     Brown (CA)
     Brown (FL)
     Brown (OH)
     Bryant (TX)
     Camp
     Cardin
     Chapman
     Clay
     Clayton
     Clyburn
     Coleman
     Collins (IL)
     Collins (MI)
     Condit
     Conyers
     Coyne
     Cramer
     Danner
     de la Garza
     DeFazio
     DeLauro
     Dellums
     Deutsch
     Dicks
     Dingell
     Dooley
     Doyle
     Durbin
     Edwards
     Engel
     Eshoo
     Evans
     Farr
     Fattah
     Fazio
     Filner
     Flake
     Foglietta
     Ford
     Frost
     Furse
     Gejdenson
     Geren
     Gibbons
     Gonzalez
     Goodling
     Gordon
     Green
     Gunderson
     Gutierrez
     Hall (OH)
     Hamilton
     Harman
     Hastings (FL)
     Hefner
     Hilliard
     Hinchey
     Hoekstra
     Holden
     Horn
     Hoyer
     Jackson-Lee
     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
     McHale
     McKinney
     McNulty
     Meehan
     Meek
     Menendez
     Mfume
     Miller (CA)
     Minge
     Mink
     Moakley
     Mollohan
     Montgomery
     Moran
     Murtha
     Myers
     Nadler
     Neal
     Nethercutt
     Oberstar
     Obey
     Olver
     Ortiz
     Orton
     Owens
     Pallone
     Pastor
     Payne (NJ)
     Payne (VA)
     Pelosi
     Peterson (FL)
     Peterson (MN)
     Pickett
     Pomeroy
     Poshard
     Quinn
     Rahall
     Rangel
     Reed
     Richardson
     Rivers
     Roemer
     Roukema
     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
     Velazquez
     Vento
     Visclosky
     Ward
     Waters
     Williams
     Wise
     Woolsey
     Wyden
     Wynn
     Yates
     Zimmer

                        ANSWERED ``PRESENT''--26

     Bachus
     Barrett (WI)
     Bartlett
     Blute
     Burr
     Castle
     Davis
     Dixon
     Ehlers
     Franks (NJ)
     Frelinghuysen
     Hobson
     LaTourette
     Leach
     LoBiondo
     Longley
     Martini
     Morella
     Ney
     Parker
     Petri
     Pryce
     Rohrabacher
     Wamp
     Wicker
     Wolf

                             NOT VOTING--18

     Baker (LA)
     Brewster
     Dornan
     Fields (LA)
     Hayes
     Jacobs
     Jefferson
     Livingston
     McCrery
     McDermott
     Neumann
     Oxley
     Rose
     Tucker
     Volkmer
     Waxman
     Weldon (PA)
     Wilson

                              {time}  1136

  Mr. BONIOR, Mr. TORRES, and Ms. KAPTUR changed their vote from 
``yea'' to ``nay.''
  Messrs. HEFLEY, COSTELLO, and SHAYS changed their vote from ``nay'' 
to ``yea.''
  Messrs. PETRI, PARKER, WAMP, LONGLEY, LoBIONDO, FRELING- HUYSEN, NEY, 
and BARRETT of Wisconsin changed their vote from ``yea'' to 
``present.''

[[Page H 13314]]

  So the motion was agreed to.
  The result of the vote was announced as above recorded.
  A motion to reconsider was laid on the table.
  The SPEAKER pro tempore (Mr. Goodlatte). The gentleman from Florida 
[Mr. Mica] may proceed in order.
  Mr. MICA. Mr. Speaker and my colleagues, first I want to apologize 
for the inconvenience that I have caused the House. I did ask unanimous 
consent to have my remarks withdrawn.
  I hold the House in great honor and really consider it a tremendous 
privilege to serve here. As Members know, my family served on that side 
of the aisle. It is a great institution. I do nothing to shed any bad 
light on the House and apologize if any words that I, in fact, made 
were improper to each and every one of you personally, but I guess we 
get emotional in this.
  I never went to law school and sometimes I come up here and say 
things I should not say. I probably should choose better words. But, 
like some of you, I missed my son's football game last night, I did not 
get a chance to get the house cleaned today with my wife for 
Thanksgiving.
  You really think about the reason we are here is to balance our 
budget and to get our Government's finances in order.
  I know everybody on this side wants to do that with compassion and 
care. That is the reason we are all here and to try and do a good job 
to get our country's finances in order and to be responsible as 
Representatives of the people.
  Mr. McINNIS. Mr. Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.
  Mr. BEILENSON. Mr. Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from 
Maryland [Mr. Cardin].
  Mr. CARDIN. Mr. Speaker, quite frankly my constituents do not quite 
understand why we are behaving the way we are today, when it is my 
constituents, when it is the Federal worker, when it is the taxpayer, 
when it is the person who needs Federal services that has the right to 
be outraged and to lose their patience from what we are not doing in 
this Chamber.
  Let me bring us back to the rule that is before us that will permit 
us to have a continuing resolution so that our veterans, Social 
Security benefits, and Medicare can be processed. That is a reasonable 
request, a continuing resolution for those purposes.
  My constituents are asking why can we not have a continuing 
resolution for the other agencies of Government? If it is simple enough 
under suspension of the rules to pass authority to spend money for 
veterans, Social Security, and Medicare, why can we not do it for all 
of the appropriations where this House has not sent to the President an 
appropriation bill?
  My constituents are being inconvenienced not just on Social Security 
and veterans' checks but on their inability to get a passport 
processed, on their inability to have other Government services 
performed. They are outraged because our agencies are closed, we are 
telling Federal workers to stay home and be paid for the services that 
are not being performed, we are in fiscal crisis, and we are doing 
that?
  If we can pass a continuing resolution without holding the President 
hostage on these areas, then why can we not come together and pass a 
continuing resolution on all of the agencies of Federal Government?
  Do not bring up the balanced budget or other issues. Many of us 
support balancing the budget in 7 years. We can debate that on the 
budget. Not on a continuing resolution.
  You are showing willingness for veterans, Social Security, and 
Medicare, then show a way to do it for all of our agencies.
  Yes, let us support this, but let us bring up a continuing resolution 
for all Government services.
  Mr. McINNIS. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume.
  Mr. Speaker, I think it is important at this stage of the rule debate 
that we focus on what this debate is about, and that is the rule. I 
would like to just repeat that House Resolution 275 is a 
straightforward resolution. The proposed rule merely provides that it 
shall be in order at any time today for the Speaker to entertain 
motions that the House suspend the rules. The Committee on Rules agreed 
to the amendment to the rule by the gentleman from California [Mr. 
Beilenson] which provides that the matters being considered under 
suspension will be announced from the House floor at least 1 hour prior 
to consideration and that the Speaker or his designee will consult with 
the majority leader or his designee prior to consideration under this 
resolution.
  This resolution, this rule, was taken out of the Committee on Rules 
by unanimous vote. I think it is especially important that the 
remaining speakers focus on the issue of the rule.

                              {time}  1145

  By passing this resolution, we are attempting to speed up the process 
so we can reopen the Government as soon as possible while keeping the 
commitment to the American people to balance this budget within a 7-
year period of time.
  Mr. Speaker, I yield 1\1/2\ minutes to the gentleman from California 
[Mr. Cunningham].
  Mr. CUNNINGHAM. Mr. Speaker, I would focus on the rule, except for 10 
seconds ago I had talked about the balanced budget, so I am going to 
have to do that. It is a good rule.
  I think my colleagues on the other side would agree this is a good 
rule, and we ask for their support.
  Without looking at any blame, why do we need? I think, instead, of 
the Washington Post says we need a goal for a balanced budget, that the 
President is looking for a goal. And why do we need it hard and fast, 
without blame on any side?
  In the 1970's we were going to balance the budget. We were going to 
reduce spending for every tax dollar that comes in by 3. It was not 
done. Then in the 1980's they had a foolproof, they came up with a 
foolproof way to balance the budget. It was called Gramm-Rudman. Again, 
for every tax dollar that came in, we were going to cut spending by 3, 
or at least reduce it. That was not enforceable.
  Then the famous one, when George Bush moved his lips. We were all 
going to reduce spending. We did not there.
  I think, my colleagues, when we try and reduce spending, those are 
called cuts.
  You know, it does not serve any of us. We are trying to reduce, in a 
balanced way, to balance the budget. I think we need a hard, firm 
commitment out of this Congress because it is primarily with Congress 
that those come from, and with the President, that we need to balance 
the budget.
  He said we could do it in 5. He also said we can do it in 7. And all 
we would like is a commitment to do it in 7.
  I ask you to vote for the rule because I think it is a good rule.
  Mr. MOAKLEY. Mr. Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the gentlewoman from 
Colorado [Mrs. Schroeder].
  Mrs. SCHROEDER. Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentleman for yielding me 
this time.
  Let us talk about this rule. Why do we need a rule now today that 
allows them to waive everything, run everything through here without 
notice, no layover, no anything? Why? Because it is now 59 days after 
the fiscal year came and went, and you have all seen the charts of the 
gentleman from Wisconsin.
  The Gingrich Republicans did not get their work done. We have heard a 
lot this week about airplane rides and why they did not get it done and 
who felt bad and what the President did.
  But, basically it is very interesting to me that the reason we are 59 
days and still have not gotten the work done is there is a huge 
disagreement between Republicans in the Senate and Republicans in the 
House. So I do not really care whether they got to talk to the 
President or not.
  I am amazed that the Leader Dole and Speaker Gingrich can sit next to 
each other for 25 hours on a plane, they still did not get it worked 
out. We still have not got the charts filled.
  So now we have to have this rule to run everything through. Everybody 
is trying to be obscure by saying we are for a balanced budget, no, we 
are, we want 7 years, no, 5 years, 10 years, the President.
  Here is the Republican balanced budget. It is simple. They have got 
more weapons and half the special interests. That is what it was, big 
corporate tax cuts, big corporate welfare and more for defense than the 
Joint Chiefs of Staff asked for.

[[Page H 13315]]

  You have got to pay for a balanced budget somehow. Many of us have 
already voted for a 7-year balanced budget. That is not really at 
issue. The issue is how you get to the balanced budget.
  But that is not the issue today. The issue is how do you get the 
bills done? How do you get the work product done? We have failed in 
doing our work. But what we have done is throw other people out of work 
that want to do their work.
  There is something nuts about this, and I must say to the other side 
it does not look efficient, and I am ashamed we have to be here on this 
rule today.
  Mr. McINNIS. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume.
  Mr. Speaker, first of all, in regards to the preceding speaker, it is 
her kind of math, frankly, we have gotten a problem with. It has been 
49 days since the end of the fiscal year, not 59 days.
  Second of all, Mr. speaker, I would like to finish my comments. The 
other comment I would like to make is, as I recall the previous 
Speaker's statements from earlier in the year, the criticism to this 
side of the aisle is we are going too fast, you are going too fast, 
slow it down. I think both sides of the aisle can work on this. Let us 
get it completed and get a commitment from the President to balance the 
budget within 7 years.
  Mr. Speaker, I yield 1 minute to my friend, the gentleman from South 
Carolina [Mr. Graham].
  Mr. GRAHAM. Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentleman for yielding me this 
time.
  Contrary to what many people may believe, this happens on occasion in 
our democracy where we come to an impasse. I think 7, 8, 9, 10 times 
since 1980 we have had debates about where to take the country. We have 
had to go past the end of the fiscal year.
  This is probably the greatest debate I will ever engage in as a 
Member of Congress because the single issue is this: Is it not about 
time, American people, both Houses of Congress and the President joined 
together and commit to the principle of balancing the budget within 7 
years, which is not too hard, which needs to be done?
  Let me tell you why it needs to be done: We spent more money this 
year in interest payments than the entire Department of Defense budget. 
If we do not change our spending ways, in 17 years the entitlement 
portion of the budget and the interest portion of the budget will 
consume the entire revenue stream. If we do not do it now, when are we 
going to do it? Let some objective group, not Republicans or Democrats, 
look at the numbers. This can end in 30 seconds, not just for veterans 
and Social Security applicants but for the whole Nation. Let us end it 
right. Let us give the American people the best Christmas present they 
could ever have, and that is Congress and the President agree to get 
the Nation's financial house in order. Now is the time.
  Mr. MOAKLEY. Mr. Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from 
Texas [Mr. Edwards].
  Mr. EDWARDS. Mr. Speaker, with today's continuing resolution, I am 
glad the Republican leadership has finally recognized what Democrats 
have felt.
  By this resolution, I am glad the Republican leadership has 
recognized what we felt all along, and that is that it is wrong to use 
veterans and Medicare recipients and social security recipients as 
hostages, as innocent victims in this budget debate.
  It is not what is in this continuing resolution today that bothers 
me. It is what is not in this continuing resolution that bothers me. 
The resolution we will vote on today does not allow us to ensure that 
the paychecks of the American military personnel will go out on time on 
December 1. Let me repeat that: The continuing resolution today will 
not ensure that American military paychecks will go out on time on 
December 1. As we sit in this comfortable, heated room, there are 
thousands of American soldiers serving in the freezing cold of Korea, 
and under our continuing resolution today, those soldiers' families may 
not get their paychecks on December 1 and they may not be able to pay 
their rent and their utility bills.
  My friends, that is unconscionable, and we should not allow it to 
happen. I am honored and privileged to represent 45,000 soldiers at 
Fort Hood in Texas. They are patriotic young men and women doing their 
duty, doing what we have asked them to do to serve their country, and 
it is unfair and it wrong. Under this resolution, even if it passes, we 
cannot tell them eye to eye that they are going to get their paychecks 
on time.
  There is nothing wrong with having an honest budget debate about 
whether we balance the budget in 7 years, 8 years, 9 years.
  There is nothing wrong about having that debate. It is wrong not to 
pay our military personnel on time.
  Mr. McINNIS. Mr. Speaker, I yield 15 seconds to the gentleman from 
Florida [Mr. Young].
  Mr. YOUNG of Florida. Mr. Speaker, in response to the gentleman just 
in the well, I would like to report to him without any reference to 
Medicare, Medicaid, school lunches, tax increases, tax cuts, or 
anything else, the House and the Senate, in a strong bipartisan vote, 
have already passed the bill, the Defense appropriations bill, that 
would pay the salaries of the people in our military. All we need is a 
signature from the President, and that becomes law and they can go back 
to work and they can get paid.
  Mr. McINNIS. Mr. Speaker, I yield 1 minute to the gentleman from 
Arizona [Mr. Kolbe].
  (Mr. KOLBE asked and was given permission to revise and extend his 
remarks.)
  Mr. KOLBE. Mr. Speaker, we have heard this morning and we hear on the 
radio waves and in the newspapers people are sick and tired. They are 
tired of the quibbling. They are tired of the Government being shut 
down. They want us to do our business.
  Let me just say to my colleagues and, through them, to the American 
people, yes, democracy is a messy business.
  As George Will said the other day, there is no such tension, there is 
no such disagreement going on in Beijing and Havana, that none of us 
are envious of that. It is messy.
  What we are doing is important because there is an underlying 
principle that is important here, and the underlying principle is a 
balanced budget.
  As we have heard, this is a reasonable balanced budget. Medicare is 
up by 40 percent per individual over the next 7 years. Medicaid is up 
by nearly 50 percent; more student loans; the earned-income tax credit 
is up. If that is the case, what is this all about? It is about slowing 
the rate of government growth so we can just live within our means, and 
that will mean lower interest rates so everybody with a mortgage or a 
car loan or business loan can spend less money on that and have more 
money to spend and invest in their business and to spend on their 
family.
  Yes, it is messy, but it is important, and we should balance the 
budget.
  Mr. MOAKLEY. Mr. Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from 
Montana [Mr. Williams].
  Mr. WILLIAMS. Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentleman for yielding me this 
time.
  Mr. OBEY. Mr. Speaker, will the gentleman yield to me?
  Mr. WILLIAMS. I yield to the gentleman from Wisconsin.
  Mr. OBEY. Mr. Speaker, let me simply point out the gentleman from 
Florida is incorrect. The military pay raise cannot go into effect 
until the authorization level is passed, and that legislation is tied 
up between the two Houses. So the military personnel will not get their 
pay raise.
  Mr. WILLIAMS. Mr. Speaker, my colleagues, do we all remember that 
game show, ``Name That Tune''? I can name that tune in 10 notes, I can 
name that tune in 7 notes.
  The American people think that is what we are doing here with this 7 
years. I can balance that budget in 7 years, I can balance that budget 
in 5 years, I can balance that budget. The 7 years is arbitrary. A 
dozen Members on that side have told me the 7 years is arbitrary.
  It is reported that, when asked publicly by the press how we arrived 
at 7 years, the Speaker of the House said it was our intuition.
  This is not a game show. Name That Tune is not worth doubling the 
Medicare premiums on my senior citizens in Montana. Name That Tune is 
not worth cutting 600 little Montana kids out of Head Start. Name That 
Tune is not worth increasing the costs of college as much as $9,000 to 
my Montana students.

[[Page H 13316]]

  No wonder the American people do not support this fight. They 
understand that this thing was intuition. They understand that the 7 
years is arbitrary.
  What the American people support is moving toward a balanced budget 
in whatever number of years it takes to preserve the appropriate 50-
year tradition of an equitable Federal partnership in their lives. 
There is no magic about 7 or 10. Let us get off of Name That Tune and 
start naming that balanced budget in a way that protects the American 
people as well as the American economy.

                              {time}  1200

  Mr. McINNIS. Mr. Speaker, I yield 1 minute to my friend, the 
gentleman from Arkansas [Mr. Dickey].
  Mr. DICKEY. Mr. Speaker, communications are very important in this 
discussion. We have got to remember communications, both now and after 
we finish with our work.
  What I am talking about is the fact that we are spending so much time 
tearing away from tradition and tearing away from 30 years of practice 
and indulgence, spending that has been on in this Government to an 
excess. And, as we tear it away, we are also getting into a lot of 
arguments and discussions and so forth. But we have got to admit that 
the people who have been in control could give us more cooperation.
  We have to admit that the information that we could get from the 
people who have been in authority for all these years would be very 
helpful. But right now they are not only not giving us that 
information, but they are causing us to have to withstand emotional 
arguments.
  What I am pleading with you all to do is for us to keep the lines of 
communications going. We are going to make mistakes. In this 
environment we are going to make mistakes. We are trying to bring 
spending cuts to our country.
  Mr. MOAKLEY. Mr. Speaker, I yield 1\1/2\ minutes to the gentleman 
from California [Mr. Farr].
  Mr. FARR. Mr. Speaker, this is the first Saturday that the 104th 
Congress has been in session. Last year at this time Congress was home 
with their families preparing for the Thanksgiving holidays, praying 
for peace in Bosnia and the Middle East. We had adopted all 13 
appropriations bills, we had passed the budget, and we created a $500 
billion deficit reduction package.
  Look at this year. We have more days in session, more votes cast, and 
less done, than any time in recent history. The delay, the fight, is 
not necessary. Just in the beginning of October, this House passed a 
continuing resolution by a voice vote, so uncontroversial nobody even 
wanted to have to debate it.
  You have the power, Mr. Speaker, you have the votes, Mr. Speaker, you 
have celebrated the expedience in which you could pass the Contract 
With America. You have made promises and less progress. You can bring 
the Federal workers back to their jobs and send Congress home to their 
families without any debate.
  Pass a clean resolution. You have shown it could be done in October. 
It certainly should be done this late in November.
  Mr. McINNIS. Mr. Speaker, I yield 1 minute and 45 seconds to my good 
friend, the gentlewoman from Maryland [Mrs. Morella].
  Mrs. MORELLA. Mr. Speaker, I rise today in favor of the rule, and I 
also rise today to say enough. It is time for this House and the White 
House to stop the partisan bickering that has brought this city and 
this Nation to crisis.
  This week, how many lives were altered in ways that we will never 
begin to know? This week, for example, how many scientists were kept 
from their labs at NIH, kept from their research on AIDS, cancer 
research, breast cancer research, prostate cancer research?
  All across this region and country Federal employees who want to work 
have been furloughed. Those who have been working have been struggling 
to keep their agencies afloat and thousands, of taxpayers have been 
locked out of services they need and deserve. Federal employees, 
Federal contractors, and the American people have become pawns and 
hostages in a showdown that can and must be resolved.
  The situation, frankly, has become intolerable, and, quite frankly, 
shameful. I would like to include a letter from the suburban Maryland 
High Technology Council outlining the adverse effects and impact, 
because frankly, I know there is common ground for agreement and for 
ending this crisis, and we will agree we must make sacrifices to 
balance the budget. We are willing to do it, and we can sit down to do 
it.
  I want to remind the President and this body that the Director of the 
Office of Management and Budget is the former director of the 
Congressional Budget Office. So why can we not come together?
  I urge this body to be involved with the White House in prompt 
action. It is time to stop toying with the lives of the American 
people.
  Mr. Speaker, I include the following for the Record:

                                            Suburban Maryland High


                                           Technology Council,

                                 Rockville, MD, November 17, 1995.
     Hon. Constance Morella,
     Cannon House Office Building,
     Washington, DC.
       Dear Representative Morella: The Suburban Maryland High 
     Technology Council has polled its member technology firms 
     concerning the affects and impacts of the current Federal 
     Government shutdown on their day to day operations.
       I have assembled and categorized some of the responses into 
     the points below to let you know how this action is affecting 
     them.


                             business loss

       Several companies mentioned that they are loosing business:
       Unable to make sales.
       Unable to take orders.
       Cannot make deliveries.
       Cannot bill the government for services and equipment 
     ordered.
       Delay on receiving payments from government agencies which 
     affects cash flow.
       Other companies comments:
       Delay in shipments of perishable medical products to 
     government facilities.
       ``Our firm Handles government facilities and our business 
     definitely suffering.''
       ``Our orders are down 80% from NIH.''


                               contracts

       New contracts are not being issued or processed.
       Contracts are being delayed.


                             agency access

       Difficulty in contacting the Commerce Department, therefore 
     difficulties in conducting international business.
       Limited access to information at Federal Communications 
     Commission.
       Cannot use NIH Library--day or night.


                           company employees

       Employees assigned to government facilities have no work 
     and will have to be laid off if the shutdown continues.
       Had to find alternative work within the company for several 
     contract employees deemed ``non-essential'' by the 
     government.
       Furloughed 12 people on one contract, (80% of the contract 
     staff). They represent 10% of the companies employees.
       Ten people had to be furloughed. That is a loss of income 
     for these employees and they will not be paid as government 
     employees expected to be.
       Will continue to keep our employees even if we must borrow 
     money and pay interest on it. This will affect our revenues.


                                 other

       Federal Government shutdown sends the wrong message to the 
     world about the prowess of the United States of America.
       Not only are the many government employees in our area 
     impacted negatively by the shutdown of the federal government 
     but our many government contractors are also feeling the 
     drain. Unfortunately, there will be no provisions for 
     retroactive compensation for the losses these firms are 
     experiencing. Maryland has a large share of the nations 
     government contractors. Lack of income, contracts, employee 
     layoffs will have in immediate effect on these firms. 
     Additionally the lack of indirect and induced revenues 
     generated by these firms will have an affect on State's 
     economy.
       We urge you to work diligently and quickly to solve this 
     detrimental shutdown of our federal government.
           Sincerely,
                                                  Dyan Brasington,
                                                        President.

  Mr. DAVIS. Mr. Speaker, will the gentlewoman yield?
  Mrs. MORELLA. I yield to the gentleman from Virginia.
  Mr. DAVIS. Mr. Speaker, I would include for the Record an article by 
Eric Black of the Minneapolis-St. Paul Star Tribune. It is an 
explanation on the whole CBO-OMB controversy.

                   [Washington Times--Nov. 18, 1995]

                   '93 Words Return to Haunt Clinton

                            (By Eric Black)

       In four forgotten paragraphs of a 1993 speech, President 
     Clinton delivered a devastating critique of the position he 
     is defending today.
       The Republican congressional leadership has insisted that, 
     as part of a stopgap funding bill, Mr. Clinton must accept a 
     set of economic projections developed by the Congressional 
     Budget Office (CBO) as the common 

[[Page H 13317]]
     method of analyzing competing budget proposals.
       Mr. Clinton insists on using more optimistic economic 
     forecasts by his own Office of Management and Budget (OMB), a 
     practice he derided in the 1993 speech, saying it provided 
     both parties with ``greater elbow room for 
     irresponsibility.''
       In a joint session of Congress on Feb. 17, 1993, when he 
     unveiled his first budget plan, Mr. Clinton made the 
     following points:
       Republicans and Democrats cannot have a clear debate about 
     spending, taxing and deficit-reduction priorities unless they 
     first agree on a common method for scoring the impact of 
     their competing proposals on future deficits.
       The CBO should be the source of that common method because 
     it is ``independent'' and its estimates have been more 
     conservative and more accurate than the OMB estimates, which 
     often seemed to be tailored to the political needs of the 
     president.
       Mr. Clinton particularly wanted to avoid relying on more 
     optimistic projections so that ``no one could say I was 
     estimating my way out of the difficulty.''
       The American people cannot follow the argument over 
     spending priorities and will not ``think we're shooting 
     straight with them'' unless the president and Congress agree 
     on a common set of economic assumptions.
       All four arguments are now being made by the Republican 
     congressional leaders. Now, Mr. Clinton rejects the arguments 
     that he made in 1993.
       The Republicans are no models of consistency in this 
     matter. When Mr. Clinton first boasted that his deficit 
     projections were more credible because they were based on 
     ``the independent numbers of the Congressional Budget 
     Office,'' the derisive laughter from the Republican side of 
     the aisle was so loud it caused Mr. Clinton to depart from 
     his text.
       Then, of course, Congress had a Democratic majority and the 
     CBO leaders were Democratic appointees. Speaker Newt 
     Gingrich, who had often accused longtime CBO Director Robert 
     Reischauer of pro-Democrat bias, insisted on changing CBO 
     directors.
       The argument over how to ``score'' budget proposals, while 
     highly technical in nature, is also enormously important. To 
     say what next year's federal deficit might be, even if all 
     current policies were maintained, would require an accurate 
     forecast of economic growth rate, unemployment, inflation, 
     interest rates, wage trends, tax compliance and countless 
     other figures.
       If someone proposed a change, such as lower capital gains 
     taxes or new HMO-type options for Medicare, the scorekeepers 
     would have to estimate how many people would see long-held 
     assets to take advantage of the lower tax rate, how many 
     seniors would choose the HMO option and how much less it 
     might cost the government to insure them that way:
       Mr. Clinton was right in 1993 when he said that CBO 
     projections had been more accurate than OMB projections 
     during the Reagan and Bush years. The bad news is that even 
     the more pessimistic CBO projections turned out to be overly 
     optimistic for every one of those 12 years.

  Mr. McINNIS. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume.
  Mr. Speaker, I think it is very important, first of all, to remember 
that this rule came out of the Committee on Rules unanimously on a 
voice vote. There is no reason that we should not pass this rule here 
today.
  Second of all, I think it is important we put it in its proper 
perspective. We think that it is especially important at this point in 
time in our history for the President of this country to go along with 
the U.S. Congress and commit to balancing the budget of this country in 
a seven-year period of time, using the CBO numbers.
  We do not think that is too much to ask of the President, and the 
President should not think it is too much to ask of the Congress, and, 
frankly, the people of America are demanding we balance our budget.
  The next thing I think is important to point out is at the beginning 
of this session when we are trying to change things, it has been 40 
years, we were criticized for going too fast. Now, ironically, today we 
are being criticized for going too slow.
  Finally, I would ask all the members to keep in mind the President's 
budget that he submitted went down 99 to 0 in February. Not even one 
Democrat in the U.S. Senate supported that budget.
  Mr. Speaker, I move the previous question.
  The SPEAKER pro tempore. The question is on ordering the previous 
question.
  The question was taken; and the Speaker pro tempore announced that 
the ayes appeared to have it.
  Mr. OBEY. 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.
  Pursuant to the provisions of clause 5 of rule XV, the Chair 
announces that he will reduce to a minimum of 5 minutes the period of 
time within which a vote by electronic device, if ordered, will be 
taken on the question of agreeing to the resolution.
  The Sergeant at Arms will notify absent Members.
  The vote was taken by electronic device, and there were--yeas 247, 
nays 169, not voting 16, as follows:

                             [Roll No. 817]

                               YEAS--247

     Allard
     Archer
     Armey
     Bachus
     Baesler
     Baker (CA)
     Ballenger
     Barr
     Barrett (NE)
     Bartlett
     Barton
     Bass
     Bateman
     Bereuter
     Bevill
     Bilbray
     Bilirakis
     Bliley
     Blute
     Boehlert
     Boehner
     Bonilla
     Bono
     Browder
     Brownback
     Bryant (TN)
     Bunn
     Bunning
     Burr
     Burton
     Buyer
     Callahan
     Calvert
     Camp
     Canady
     Castle
     Chabot
     Chambliss
     Chenoweth
     Christensen
     Chrysler
     Clement
     Clinger
     Coble
     Coburn
     Collins (GA)
     Combest
     Condit
     Cooley
     Costello
     Cox
     Cramer
     Crane
     Crapo
     Cremeans
     Cubin
     Cunningham
     Danner
     Davis
     Deal
     DeLay
     Diaz-Balart
     Dickey
     Doolittle
     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
     Geren
     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
     Laughlin
     Lazio
     Leach
     Lewis (CA)
     Lewis (KY)
     Lightfoot
     Lincoln
     Linder
     Lipinski
     Livingston
     LoBiondo
     Longley
     Lucas
     Luther
     Manzullo
     Martini
     McCollum
     McDade
     McHugh
     McInnis
     McIntosh
     McKeon
     Metcalf
     Meyers
     Mica
     Miller (FL)
     Minge
     Molinari
     Montgomery
     Moorhead
     Morella
     Myers
     Myrick
     Nethercutt
     Ney
     Norwood
     Nussle
     Orton
     Packard
     Parker
     Paxon
     Peterson (MN)
     Petri
     Pombo
     Porter
     Portman
     Poshard
     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
     Skelton
     Smith (MI)
     Smith (NJ)
     Smith (TX)
     Smith (WA)
     Solomon
     Souder
     Spence
     Stearns
     Stenholm
     Stockman
     Stump
     Talent
     Tate
     Tauzin
     Taylor (MS)
     Taylor (NC)
     Thomas
     Thornberry
     Tiahrt
     Torkildsen
     Traficant
     Upton
     Vucanovich
     Waldholtz
     Walker
     Walsh
     Wamp
     Watts (OK)
     Weldon (FL)
     Weller
     White
     Whitfield
     Wicker
     Wolf
     Young (AK)
     Young (FL)
     Zeliff
     Zimmer

                               NAYS--169

     Abercrombie
     Ackerman
     Andrews
     Baldacci
     Barcia
     Barrett (WI)
     Becerra
     Beilenson
     Bentsen
     Berman
     Bishop
     Bonior
     Borski
     Boucher
     Brown (CA)
     Brown (FL)
     Brown (OH)
     Bryant (TX)
     Cardin
     Chapman
     Clay
     Clayton
     Clyburn
     Coleman
     Collins (IL)
     Collins (MI)
     Conyers
     Coyne
     de la Garza
     DeFazio
     DeLauro
     Dellums
     Deutsch
     Dicks
     Dingell
     Dixon
     Doggett
     Dooley
     Doyle
     Durbin
     Edwards
     Engel
     Eshoo
     Evans
     Farr
     Fattah
     Fazio
     Filner
     Flake
     Foglietta
     Ford
     Frank (MA)
     Frost
     Furse
     Gejdenson
     Gephardt
     Gibbons
     Gonzalez
     Gordon
     Green
     Gutierrez
     Hall (OH)
     Hall (TX)
     Hamilton
     Harman
     Hastings (FL)
     Hefner
     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)
     Lofgren
     Lowey
     Maloney
     Manton
     Markey
     Martinez
     Mascara
     Matsui
     McCarthy
     McHale
     McKinney
     McNulty
     Meehan
     Meek
     Menendez
     Mfume
     Miller (CA)
     Mink
     Moakley
     Mollohan
     Moran
     Murtha
     Nadler
     Neal
     Oberstar
     Obey
     Olver
     Ortiz
     Owens
     Pallone
     Pastor
     Payne (NJ)
     Payne (VA)
     Pelosi
     Peterson (FL)
     Pickett
     Pomeroy
     Rahall
     Rangel
     Reed
     Richardson
     Rivers
     Roemer
     Rose

[[Page H 13318]]

     Roybal-Allard
     Rush
     Sabo
     Sanders
     Sawyer
     Schroeder
     Schumer
     Scott
     Serrano
     Sisisky
     Skaggs
     Slaughter
     Spratt
     Stark
     Stokes
     Studds
     Stupak
     Tanner
     Tejeda
     Thompson
     Thornton
     Thurman
     Torres
     Torricelli
     Towns
     Velazquez
     Vento
     Visclosky
     Ward
     Waters
     Watt (NC)
     Williams
     Wise
     Woolsey
     Wyden
     Wynn
     Yates

                             NOT VOTING--16

     Baker (LA)
     Brewster
     Dornan
     Fields (LA)
     Hayes
     Jacobs
     McCrery
     McDermott
     Neumann
     Oxley
     Pryce
     Tucker
     Volkmer
     Waxman
     Weldon (PA)
     Wilson

                              {time}  1226

  Mr. ENGEL changed his vote from ``yea'' to ``nay.''
  Mr. POSHARD, Ms. DANNER, Mr. LIPINSKI, and Mr. BROWDER changed their 
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. Goodlatte). The question is on the 
resolution.
  The resolution was agreed to.
  A motion to reconsider was laid on the table.

                          ____________________