[Congressional Record Volume 142, Number 58 (Wednesday, May 1, 1996)]
[House]
[Pages H4311-H4329]
From the Congressional Record Online through the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
U.S. MARSHALS SERVICE IMPROVEMENT ACT OF 1996
Ms. PRYCE. Mr. Speaker, by direction of the Committee on Rules, I
call up House Resolution 418 and ask for its immediate consideration.
The Clerk read the resolution, as follows:
H. Res. 418
Resolved, That at any time after adoption of this
resolution the Speaker may, pursuant to clause 1(b) of rule
XXIII, declare the House resolved into Committee of the Whole
House on the state of the Union of consideration of the bill
(H.R. 2641) to amend title 28, United States Code, to provide
for appointment of United States marshals by the Director of
the United States Marshals Service. The first reading of the
bill shall be dispensed with. General debate shall be
confined to the bill and shall not exceed one hour equally
divided and controlled by the chairman and ranking minority
member of the Committee on the Judiciary. After general
debate the bill shall be considered for amendment under the
five-minute rule, It shall be in order to consider as an
original bill for the purpose of amendment under the five-
minute rule the amendment in the nature of a substitute
recommended by the Committee on the Judiciary now printed in
the bill. Each section of the committee amendment in the
nature of a substitute shall be considered as read. During
consideration of the bill for amendment, the Chairman of the
Committee of the Whole may accord priority in recognition on
the basis of whether the Member offering an amendment has
caused it to be printed in the portion of the Congressional
Record designated for that purpose in clause 6 of rule XXIII.
Amendments so printed shall be considered as read. At the
conclusion of consideration of the bill for amendment the
Committee shall rise and report the bill to the House with
such amendments as may have been adopted. Any Member may
demand a separate vote in the House on any amendment adopted
in the Committee of the Whole to the bill or to the committee
amendment in the nature of a substitute. The previous
question shall be considered as ordered on the bill and
amendments thereto to final passage without intervening
motion except one motion to recommit with or without
instructions.
Sec. 2. After passage of H.R. 2641, it shall be in order to
take from the Speaker's table the bill S. 1338 and to
consider the Senate bill in the House. It shall be in order
to move to strike all after the enacting clause of the Senate
bill and to insert in lieu thereof the provisions of H.R.
2641 as passed by the House. If the motion is adopted and the
Senate bill, as amended, is passed, then it shall be in order
to move that the House insist on its amendments to S. 1338
and request a conference with the Senate thereon.
The SPEAKER pro tempore (Mr. Gutknecht). The gentlewoman from Ohio
[Ms. Pryce] is recognized for 1 hour.
Ms. PRYCE. Mr. Speaker, for purposes of debate only, I yield the
customary 30 minutes to the gentleman from Ohio [Mr. Hall], pending
which I yield myself such time as I might consume. During consideration
of this resolution, all time yielded is for the purpose of debate only.
general leave
Ms. PRYCE. Mr. Speaker, I ask unanimous consent that all Members may
have 5 legislative days within which to revise and extend their remarks
on this resolution, and that I may be permitted to insert extraneous
materials into the Record following debate on the rule.
The SPEAKER pro tempore. Is there objection to the request of the
gentlewoman from Ohio?
There was no objection.
Ms. PRYCE. Mr. Speaker, House Resolution 418 provides for the
consideration of H.R. 2641, the U.S. Marshals Service Improvement Act
of 1996, under a completely open rule. The rule provides for 1 hour of
general debate equally divided and controlled by the chairman and
ranking minority member of the Committee on the Judiciary.
The rule also makes in order the Judiciary Committee amendment in the
nature of a substitute now printed in the bill as original text for the
purpose of amendment, and provides that each section will be considered
as read.
The Chairman of the Committee of the Whole may give priority in
recognition to Members who have preprinted their amendments in the
Congressional Record prior to their consideration, and such amendments
will also be considered as read. As is customary, the rule provides for
one motion to recommit, with or without instructions.
Finally, after House passage of the bill, the rule provides for the
necessary steps to consider the Senate bill, S. 1338, to insert the
House-passed provisions, and to request a conference with the Senate.
Mr. Speaker, let me emphasize that this is a wide open rule. Any
Member can be heard on any germane amendment to the bill at the
appropriate time. Although there is no preprinting requirement
contained in this rule, preprinting of amendments in the Record is an
option that is encouraged, and I hope more Members will consider that
option in the future. We on the Rules committee continue to believe
that making amendments available for our colleagues to read in advance
of floor action serves a very useful purpose and contributes to
improving the overall quality of debate.
Mr. Speaker, H.R. 2641, which this open rule makes in order, is a
simple, straightforward bill that seeks to take the politics out of
appointments to the U.S. Marshals Service by changing the selection of
marshals from that of appointment by the President, with the advice and
consent of the Senate, to selection by the Attorney General based on
relevant criteria such as an individual's law enforcement and
administrative expertise.
As a former judge and prosecutor, I worked very closely for many
years with highly qualified and well-trained law enforcement officials,
at the local, State, and Federal levels. Naturally, I was very
surprised to learn that under current law, there is no criteria for the
selection of U.S. marshals.
As was noted in the Judiciary Committee report on H.R. 2461, in some
instances, appointed marshals lack the law enforcement experience and
qualifications necessary to carry out the often multifaceted law
enforcement missions currently performed by the U.S. Marshal Service.
Today, those missions involve such demanding and sensitive tasks and
fugitive apprehension, prisoner transportation, witness protection, the
disposal of seized assets, and providing judicial security.
To address these concerns, H.R. 2641 provides that after the year
2000, new marshals will be selected on a competitive basis among career
managers within the Marshals Service, rather than simply being
nominated by a home State Senator.
In the meantime, marshals selected between the date of enactment of
this bill and the year 2000 would continue to be appointed by the
President with the advice and consent of the Senate, but would only be
permitted to serve 4-year terms.
As one of my Rules Committee colleagues said yesterday, this
legislation
[[Page H4312]]
would take an important step toward professionalizing the overall
Marshals Service by ensuring that only knowledgeable, qualified, career
managers who have risen through the ranks of the Service will be
considered for the important position of U.S. marshal. The quality of
justice is based, in part, on the public's perception of fundamental
fairness throughout the judicial system, and the changes advocated in
this legislation will help restore fairness to the Marshals Service by
taking political cronyism out of the appointments process.
For many in the Nation's law enforcement community, these are trying
times, and there seems to be an ever-increasing burden placed on the
entire judicial system--not just on the courts or on the local police
department, but across the vast spectrum of law enforcement.
As a result, the need for capable, professional law enforcement
personnel who have demonstrated outstanding expertise in their fields
is very great.
Mr. Speaker, the public at large expects law enforcement positions to
be filled by qualified professionals, and not by individuals with
convenient political contacts. I believe this legislation makes
important and necessary changes to the process by which U.S. marshals
are appointed, and hopefully its enactment will serve to improve and
enhance public confidence in the ability of Federal law enforcement
agencies to effectively protect and defend its citizens.
H.R. 2641 was favorably reported out of the Judiciary Committee by
voice vote, as was the rule by the Rules Committee yesterday. I urge my
colleagues to support this wide open rule, and continue the spirit of
openness and deliberation that we have attempted to restore to this
body.
Mr. Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.
Mr. HALL of Ohio. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may
consume.
(Mr. HALL of Ohio asked and was given permission to revise and extend
his remarks.)
Mr. HALL of Ohio. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may
consume and I thank my colleague from Ohio, Ms. Pryce, for yielding me
the time.
House Resolution 418 is an open rule which will allow full and fair
debate on H.R. 2641, a bill to change the way U.S. marshals are
appointed.
As my colleague from Ohio described, this rule provides 1 hour of
general debate, equally divided and controlled by the chairman and
ranking minority member of the Committee on the Judiciary.
Under this rule amendments will be allowed under the 5-minute rule,
the normal amending process in the House. All Members, on both sides of
the aisle, will have the opportunity to offer amendments.
The U.S. Marshals Service is the Nation's oldest Federal law
enforcement agency, dating back to 1789. The Service has critical
responsibilities, including providing protection for the Federal courts
and responding to emergencies.
I am particularly proud of the U.S. marshals who are based in the
Dayton, OH, Federal building, where I maintain my district office.
This bill will require the U.S. marshals be appointed on a merit-
based, competitive process, instead of the current political
appointment process. This will improve the professional status of this
extremely important Federal agency. It is a long-overdue improvement.
Mr. Speaker, while I do not oppose the rule, I urge a ``no'' vote on
the previous question. If the previous question is defeated, I shall
offer an amendment to the rule which would make in order a new section
in the rule. This provision would direct the Committee on Rules to
report a resolution immediately that would provide for consideration of
a bill to incrementally increase the minimum wage from its current
$4.25 an hour to $5.15 an hour beginning on July 4, 1997.
This provides for a separate vote on the minimum wage. Let me make it
clear to my colleagues, both Democrats and Republicans, defeating the
previous question will allow the House to vote on the minimum wage
increase. That is what 80 percent of Americans want us to do. That is
the right thing to do. So let's do it.
{time} 1215
Mr. Speaker, I urge Members to vote ``no'' on the previous question,
and I reserve the balance of my time.
PARLIAMENTARY INQUIRY
Ms. PRYCE. Mr. Speaker, under House Rule XIV, which requires that a
Member must confine himself to the question under debate, is it
relevant to the debate on either this rule or the debate it makes in
order to engage in a discussion of the merits of the minimum wage?
This is in the nature of a parliamentary inquiry, Mr. Speaker,
The SPEAKER pro tempore (Mr. Gutknecht). The gentlewoman from Ohio
[Ms. Pryce] has made a parliamentary inquiry. The Chair would advise
the body that clause 1 of rule XIV requires Members to confine
themselves to the question under debate in the House.
As explained on page 529 of the manual, debate on a special order
providing for consideration of a bill may range to the merits of the
bill to be made in order, but should not range to the merits of a
measure not to be considered under that special order.
Mr. HALL of Ohio. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself 1 minute.
I would like to address also what my friend, the gentlewoman from
Ohio, has suggested under her parliamentary inquiry.
This rule on this issue has been talked about a number of times in
recent years, and probably the clearest guidelines that we have had
came during a speech during consideration of a rule under the Speaker's
ruling of September 27, 1990.
I am quoting here by saying that ``the Chair has ruled that it is
certainly within the debate rules of this House to debate whether or
not this rule ought to be adopted or another procedure ought to be
adopted by the House. But when debate ranges onto the merits of the
relative bills not yet before the House, the Chair would admonish the
Members that that goes beyond the resolution.''
So, Mr. Speaker, it is within the guidelines and many rulings that we
have had in the past to bring the issue up to debate the procedure
within the rule relative to having a vote on minimum wage. I have tried
to confine my remarks thus far to the merits of the rule itself in
voting, if, in fact, the previous question would be defeated, bringing
up the minimum wage. I offer that to the House.
Mr. Speaker, I yield 5 minutes to the gentleman from Michigan [Mr.
Bonior], our leader.
Mr. BONIOR. Mr. Speaker, I thank my friend for yielding time to me.
Mr. Speaker, I am hopeful that Members will vote against the previous
question, which will then open up the opportunity for us to offer a
rule that will make in order an increase in the minimum wage for
literally 12 million people across this country. These are people who
clean the toilets, who clean the offices, who work hard for a living;
who chose work over welfare, and who are living in this country at a
wage that is less than the poverty level in this country; $8,500 a
year, if you make the minimum wage. You cannot raise a family on that.
What do many of these people do? They end up, Mr. Speaker, working
overtime. They work second jobs and third jobs. As a result of that,
they are not there at home when their kid comes home from school. They
are not there for bedtime stories, they are not there to teach them
right from wrong. The father is not there for Little League. He is not
there for other issues.
point or order
Ms. PRYCE. Regular order. Mr. Speaker, I ask the House for regular
order.
The SPEAKER pro tempore. For what purpose does the gentlewoman rise?
Ms. PRYCE. To ask the House for regular order, Mr. Speaker.
The SPEAKER pro tempore. Does the gentlewoman make a point or order?
Ms. PRYCE. Pursuant to the House's rulings, I call for regular order:
that the gentleman confine his remarks to the resolution at hand.
The SPEAKER pro tempore. Does any other Member wish to be heard on
the point of order?
The Chair recognizes the gentleman from Texas [Mr. Doggett].
[[Page H4313]]
Mr. DOGGETT. Mr. Speaker, I would like to be heard on the point or
order.
Mr. Speaker, we find ourselves this morning in exactly the same
procedural setting and procedural context as when this House considered
the omnibus appropriations bill when we met last week. At that time,
recognizing that the majority leader, the gentleman from Texas [Mr.
Armey], had said that he would oppose a minimum wage with every fiber
in his body, and that the Speaker of the House had made clear that the
American people would have no opportunity to be considered for a raise
on this floor by bringing any bill our of committee, we had a
procedural context in which the omnibus appropriations bill was before
the House, and many Members of this body, indeed, a majority of the
Members of this body, having already publicly expressed their support
for a minimum wage increase, and so the majority party, the Democrats,
on a previous question, decided to raise this issue.
We devoted most of our limited half hour, and unfortunately, we only
had a half hours, and we should have been able to devote, indeed, a
full day to debating the merits of the need for the American people for
a raise. But in exactly the same situation that we find ourselves this
morning, we considered the plight of minimum wage families, discussed
fully that issue, and today we have the same situation.
Unless the standard has changed, Mr. Speaker, or unless the
Republicans are simply fearful that the 10 of their Member who voted
against the minimum wage last week, after having had a press conference
saying they were in favor of the minimum wage, might this way not have
their arms twisted enough, then we ought to be able to have a full and
fair debate of this minimum wage issue today in exactly the same
situation we were in last week.
The SPEAKER pro tempore. Does the gentleman from California [Mr.
Miller] wish to give advice to the chair on the point of order.
Mr. MILLER of California. Mr. Speaker, on the point or order, I would
hopefully advise the Chair against the point of order. The purpose of
calling for a vote on the previous question is to open up the rule so
that alternatives may be provided. Once that rule is opened up, it is
obviously within the authors of that rule to connect unrelated matters,
because you can create a rule that is self-enacting, waiving points of
order against germaneness or what have you, as does the Committee on
Rules.
So for the purpose of us raising for the Members of the House the
alternatives which might present themselves also with respect to the
minimum wage, it is necessary to do so now as we discuss the rule and
discuss the vote on the previous question, because if is this exact
opportunity that gives the minority, which does not control the
Committee on Rules, which cannot bring these matters to the floor
except under extraordinary procedures, and this being one of them, a
vote against the previous question, we are at liberty to explain to the
House under the Rules of the House why we need to have this
extraordinary procedure to present to the country an up-or-down vote on
the minimum wage.
The gentleman from Michigan in the well has made the point that one
of the results of that vote is in fact to try and raise the minimum
wage of 12 million people who go to work every day, go to work year
round, and end up at the end of the year below the poverty line. The
vote on the previous question is the opportunity that allows this.
So when the gentlewoman suggest that somehow the debate around
whether or not to vote for the rule and to vote for the previous
question is limited to the matter at hand, in terms of the subject
matter of the bill that would then be considered after the rule is
adopted, that is to limit the debate and to stifle the minority, and
prevent the minority from having an opportunity to voice its concerns
and to voice legislative alternatives; in this case, the minimum wage.
Why does it have to be done at this point? The reason we have to ask
for a vote against the previous question and why the point of order
should not be sustained is because that point of order then enforces
what we have been told by the Republican majority leader, and that is
that he will not allow this vote to come to the floor, that he will
fight it with every fiber in his body. That precludes the minority from
offering that alternative.
So when the Chair considers the point of order raised by the
gentlewoman from Ohio----
Ms. PRYCE. Mr. Speaker, there is no point of order made.
Mr. WALKER. Mr. Speaker, there is a point of regular order before the
House.
Ms. PRYCE. Mr. Speaker, I did not ask for a point of order, I had
asked for regular order.
The SPEAKER pro tempore. The Chair asked the gentlewoman from Ohio if
she was making a point of order, and it was not clear.
Ms. PRYCE. There is no point of order. I was trying to enforce
regular order, that we would conform to the rules of this debate as
previously announced by the Chair.
The SPEAKER pro tempore. The Chair must treat this as a point of
order.
Ms. PRYCE. Mr. Speaker, if that is the case, I withdraw my point of
order.
The SPEAKER pro tempore. The gentlewoman from Ohio [Ms. Pryce]
withdraws her point of order.
The gentleman from Michigan [Mr. Bonior] is recognized for 3 more
minutes.
Mr. BONIOR. Mr. Speaker, I thank my friends, the gentleman from
California [Mr. Miller] and the gentleman from Texas [Mr. Doggett], for
making it clear to those who are listening to us this afternoon how
important this issue is with respect to not only the rights of the
minority to put forward a question of great importance to the people of
this country, but also for the substantive value of the issue itself,
which will affect the lives directly of 12 million people, and, indeed,
perhaps many, many more.
When we raise the minimum wage, when we raise the minimum wage, it
will not only affect people who make $4.25 to $5.15 an hour, about 12
million people, it is going to affect people who make above that,
people who make $5.50, $6, $6.50, $7 an hour, because in fact they will
probably be in for a raise as well.
In addition to that, this money will get circulated throughout the
economy of the local area, the hardware store, the grocery store, at
the gas station. This is one way, one small way, but one way in which
we could have what we call the bubble-up effect in the economy, instead
of the old trickle-down theory that my colleagues on this side of the
aisle have adhered to now for the past 15 or 20 years; which is a
theory, by the way, which has not yielded rewards for those at the
lower end of the economic strata in our society today.
My colleague, the gentleman from California [Mr. Miller], was
absolutely right. The gentleman from Texas [Mr. Armey], the
distinguished majority leader, has said that he will fight having a
vote on the minimum wage with every fiber of his being. The
distinguished majority whip, the gentleman from Texas [Mr. DeLay], is
reported to have said that working families trying to exist on $4.25 an
hour do not really exist. They do exist. They are out there. We have
heard from them. We have talked to them. The gentleman from Ohio [Mr.
Boehner], who chairs their conference, said ``I will commit suicide
before I vote on a clean minimum wage bill.''
Mr. Speaker, this is an important issue for the country and for
people who are struggling to make work pay. There are a number of
States, 10 of them, that have increased the minimum wage above $4.25 an
hour, and there has been no retraction in employment. Oregon has done
it, Washington has done it, the District of Columbia has done it, New
Jersey has done it.
In fact, there was a recent study done in New Jersey in the
restaurant industry by two gentlemen from Princeton, Mr. Card and Mr.
Kruger, and their findings were basically when the minimum wage was
raised in the State of New Jersey, in the restaurant industry,
employment actually increased.
We need to do this. These people work too hard, they give too much of
their lives for their families, and it is incumbent upon us to make
sure that they get a fair, decent, livable wage.
As I said earlier, Mr. Speaker, when they do not make this wage, when
this $4 or $5 an hour, they are working two
[[Page H4314]]
or three jobs, and that has a detrimental impact on their ability to be
there for their kids when they get home.
Mr. Speaker, I would urge my colleagues, and I want to first of all
congratulate the 13 Members of the other side of the aisle who stood
with us on this issue the last time we had it up on the floor. We
invite more of you to come over. This is an issue that will not go
away. We will bring it up until we get a clean vote, because we
understand and I think you understand a clean vote is going to pass
this body. It will pass the Senate. The President will indeed sign it.
I encourage my colleagues, vote ``no'' on the previous question so we
have an opportunity to offer a clean vote on raising the minimum wage
for literally millions of workers in this country.
{time} 1230
Ms. PRYCE. Mr. Speaker, I yield 5 minutes to the gentleman from
Pennsylvania [Mr. Walker].
Mr. WALKER. Mr. Speaker, let us talk first about the proposition that
the minority party has before the House, and that is that somehow what
they will do is defeat the previous question so that they can amend the
rule to make in order another piece of language about the rule which is
entirely out of order because it is nongermane to the rule before us.
Then what they would intend to do, I assume, is appeal the ruling of
the Chair, which would have ruled in an entirely predictable and an
entirely legitimate way that what they are attempting to do is totally
nongermane. They would then attempt to overrule the ruling of the
Chair, which was in fact a proper ruling.
All of this is done in the name of raising the minimum wage. That is
an interesting ploy, and I know it comes out of the frustration of the
fact that they no longer control the Rules Committee where they used to
send down all kinds of outrageous rules for this House to consider, but
now finding themselves in the minority, are willing to put aside
virtually anything that borders upon a proper decorum in the House in
order to do the things that they want to get done. It is really
interesting.
Then they go out and parade this as a vote on the issue of minimum
wage. There is no vote on the issue of minimum wage here. Virtually
everything they are trying to do is out of order, nongermane and
completely ludicrous. So the fact is that this is an exercise designed
to play games in the House of Representatives.
Mr. WATT of North Carolina. Mr. Speaker, will the gentleman yield?
Mr. WALKER. No, I am going to finish my statement first. I have
listened to all of you.
The fact is that they are attempting to tell the American people that
they are so interested in this subject that they will go to any
lengths, break the rules if necessary, in order to make their case.
Let us understand what the case is they are trying to make. What they
want to do is, they want to raise taxes, because the Democrats always
want to raise taxes. They love taxes. They love big government.
And the minimum wage is in fact a tax. It is a tax that is
particularly cruel to working middle-class families because what it is
is a huge inflationary tax within the economy.
This means that you will pay up to 20 percent more for every meal you
buy at a restaurant. You will pay up to 20 percent more for that which
you buy as food on your table at home. You will pay up to 20 percent
more for that which you buy in a store, because what they are doing is
imposing an unfunded mandate which is in fact a tax. In fact, it is a
big enough tax that the bulk of the minimum wage increase that they are
talking about, the minimum wage tax, goes to State and local
government: a billion dollars.
Ms. JACKSON-LEE of Texas. Mr. Speaker, will the gentleman yield?
Mr. WALKER. I would prefer to finish my statement if I could. The
fact is, I am obviously getting to you. This is obviously of concern to
you, to have the truth told.
The fact is that minimum wages imposed upon the States will cost this
country an extra billion dollars in State and local taxes. That is a
huge tax increase upon the American people, and in my view the fact is
that the Democrats know exactly what they are doing.
They detest the idea that we have been trimming back government. They
hated the idea that the other day we passed a bill on the floor that
cut $23 billion out of the spending of government, because the fact is
they want more government and they want to raise taxes.
This is a tax increase. What the Democrats are proposing, every time
they stand up and talk about minimum wage increases, is a tax increase
on the American people. They want to impose more and more and more
taxes so that they get more and more and more spending. That is what
they are talking about here. They would bend the rules of the House,
they would make illegitimate appeals of the rulings of the Chair, they
will do everything possible to try to bring this minimum wage tax
increase before the American people.
Middle-class families ought to look at this and be appalled. This is
the way they ran the House when they were in the majority. They cared
little about the rights of anyone. They simply did what it is they
wanted to do at any given time. The fact is Government spending rose
for a period of 25 straight years. We had bigger and bigger Government,
we had bigger and bigger taxes. They in fact undermined and destroyed
the economy during the period of time that they were in charge, and now
they want to get back to it. They want more inflation, they want to
reinflate the economy, they want to increase taxes and do the kinds of
things that Democrats are always good at doing.
Do not let this happen. Do not allow them, through some ploy here of
the rules, to try to undermine the entire rules process of the House.
The rules are here to protect the rights of both majority and minority.
The attempt by the minority to overthrow the rules so they can make a
clever political point on the House floor I think is totally appalling.
But middle-class America should be particularly concerned about this,
because what middle-class America is going to get out of this is a
massive tax increase which is going to go to the bottom of their
pocketbooks. So I would suggest that anytime we hear the Democrats come
to the floor seeking to overthrow the rules of the House so that they
can bring forth the minimum wage tax, then it is a real definition of
who they are. This is their attempt to make certain that the taxes of
the American people go up, not down.
Mr. HALL of Ohio. Mr. Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman
from Texas [Mr. Gene Green].
Mr. GENE GREEN of Texas. Mr. Speaker, I join my colleague from Ohio
and friend in also urging all my colleagues to oppose the previous
question.
It was interesting to hear the gentleman from Pennsylvania, his
creative thinking, talking about an increase in the minimum wage is an
increase in taxes. I guess he had to get that. A lot of us Democrats
last week voted for that same budget that he was bragging about.
But let me talk about what we need to do today, and the rules of the
House permit this. If the previous question is defeated, my colleague
from Ohio will have an amendment that will be offered to increase the
minimum wage. This amendment would direct the Committee on Rules to
immediately consider that, to provide for a minimum wage increase.
We hear a lot of rhetoric about moving people off welfare but the
Republican leadership and I guess my colleague from Pennsylvania is
scared of an up-or-down vote on a livable wage because this will move
people off welfare. We hear about working families do not really exist
on $4.25 an hour, but they do. We in the Democratic Party hope that we
will see that increase in the purchasing power.
Last week we talked about this, and I had the opportunity to quote a
late and great U.S. Senator from Texas, Ralph Yarborough. All this
amendment would require is just to put the jam on the lower shelf for
the little people. We are talking about $4.25 an hour for people that
are working hard to support their families, yet they cannot reach up to
that top of the shelf to get those tax cuts that the Republican want to
give to them.
All we want is to increase their minimum wage a buck an hour, 90
cents an
[[Page H4315]]
hour. In fact I am a cosponsor of a Republican's bill to increase it by
a buck an hour. I am glad they have taken the leadership to do that.
This is a bipartisan effort. Last week we saw, as my colleague from
Pennsylvania said, 13 members on the Republican side support it. I know
there are more than that as cosponsors of my colleague from New York's
bill that I am a cosponsor of.
All we are asking for is a fair, clean vote on a minimum wage
increase. Even today in the Washington Post the majority leader in the
Senate talked about let us eliminate this gas tax increase from 1993
that goes for budget reduction and deficit reduction, and at the same
time increase the minimum wage. Let us do it, Mr. Speaker. I think that
is a great idea. That way the little people can reach it not only in
their taxes they save on their gas tax, but they get a pay raise at the
same time.
Ms. PRYCE. Mr. Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.
Mr. HALL of Ohio. Mr. Speaker, I yield 1 minute to the gentlewoman
from North Carolina [Mrs. Clayton].
Mrs. CLAYTON. Mr. Speaker, I urge my colleagues to vote ``no'' on the
previous question so the rule will allow us, then, to have an amendment
that would offer the opportunity to talk and discuss the minimum wage.
I would say further that on the other side as we talk about the
Republicans not wanting us to do this, Republicans have voted for a
minimum wage. I would remind Members the last time, 1989, 135
Republicans voted in this House for the minimum wage increase,
including our now Speaker Gingrich. Thirty-six Republicans voted for it
on the Senate side, including the now majority leader, Mr. Dole, the
Presidential nominee for the Republicans. This has been a bipartisan
action.
Why can we not have this amendment that will allow us to discuss it?
Since that increase in 1989, we all know the price of living has
increased and has increased by some 13 percent. Yet we have not done
anything about raising the wages of those who are least among us. We
need a bipartisan action. Just as we did in 1989, we need it at this
time.
I urge a vote against the previous question so we can be allowed an
opportunity to discuss what we should discuss for all Americans, a
livable minimum wage.
Ms. PRYCE. Mr. Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.
Mr. HALL of Ohio. Mr. Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman
from Montana [Mr. Williams].
Mr. WILLIAMS. Mr. Speaker, the Republican men and women in this
Chamber who are opposed to an increase in the minimum wage earn more
salary from the taxpayer every 15 days than people on the minimum wage
earn all year long. Yet they still do not want to provide an additional
25 cents to those workers. We are in charge of that here. People who
earn more in 15 days will not give another 25 cents to the working poor
in this country.
What President Clinton's proposal would do is buy 6 months of
groceries for a family on a minimum wage. No wonder the American people
overwhelmingly support this increase in the minimum wage and reject the
stinginess of our colleagues on the Republican side.
Ms. PRYCE. Mr. Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.
Mr. HALL of Ohio. Mr. Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the gentlewoman
from Texas [Ms. Jackson-Lee].
(Ms. JACKSON-LEE of Texas asked and was given permission to revise
and extend her remarks.)
Ms. JACKSON-LEE of Texas. Mr. Speaker, I thank very much the Rules
Committee member Mr. Hall for his leadership and I rise to ask that we
defeat the previous question. I am sorry that my good friend did not
yield to me, the gentleman from Pennsylvania, because I wanted to
remind him of our American history.
I am proud to stand in the well of the House with a desperate act of
seeking to defeat the previous question. Americans applaud when we
desperately try to help other people. It was the American Founding
Fathers who dumped their tea in the Boston Harbor, a desperate economic
act to be able to say, ``No more; no more.'' And so I am proud to ask
to defeat the previous question so that we can do something about
raising the minimum wage.
Again, I am sorry the gentleman from Pennsylvania has left the floor
because let me tell Members, when New Jersey raised the minimum wage in
1992, it increased the jobs in New Jersey and there was no job loss.
There is nothing to say that increasing the minimum wage to $5.15 per
hour, simply 90 cents, will do anything to the American economy but
help those who are in need.
Will it help those who are in fact at the bottom rung? Yes, it will.
Will it help those who are in fact middle class? Yes, it will.
Let me share with Members, if you have ever worked an 8-hour shift as
a dishwasher, or fry cook or if you have never walked miles in 1 day
picking peas, beans, lettuce or corn and if you have never cared for
the elderly or sick and you have never experienced not affording health
care for yourself, then you may not understand the need to raise the
minimum wage. At the same time if you are part of a family with four
children who work every day, you may understand the need for the
increase in the minimum wage because it impacts your wage: increases
and how you ultimately will be able to provide for paying for your
bills.
This is a time to listen to 80 percent of the American public. This
is a time to do a desperate act. We are procedurally correct because
what we are asking to do is to defeat the previous question so that we
can bring to the House floor a clean bill to raise the minimum wage 90
cents.
I am for the repeal of the Btu tax, and what I would like to see is
that the money goes directly back to the consumer. Let us help the
consumer today, take the gas tax off, give it back to the consumer and
likewise let us raise the minimum wage for the American people, those
who do the work that is part of this American economy. This will
promote growth. We need to raise the minimum wage. A clean bill to
raise the minimum wage 90 cents is what we need now.
Ms. PRYCE. Mr. Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from
Florida [Mr. Mica].
Mr. MICA. Mr. Speaker, I do not have a little standard here but it is
interesting to hear the other side rant and rail and rave about the
minimum wage.
This sort of says it all, Bill Clinton, our President, in Time
Magazine, February 6, 1995, that was last year, I believe, said,
``Raising the minimum wage is the wrong way to raise the income of low-
wage earners.''
{time} 1245
This is just one quote. There are other quotes with the President
saying the same thing.
Now, I have only been here 3 years, Mr. Speaker. The first 2 years,
the other side of the aisle controlled, as I recall, the House, the
other body, the U.S. Senate, and the White House. They controlled it in
very large numbers. They could have brought this issue up at any time.
Instead, as I recall, and I was here for that time, what they did was
they passed the largest tax increase in history, and they said it would
not have any effect on folks. But if you have not been to the gas
station lately, I advise these people that are earning $4.25 an hour,
low-income people, to look at their gasoline prices. They raised those
gasoline taxes that they are paying, and it hurts the poorest of the
poor.
They there is another report, I submit to my colleagues, out today by
the Heritage Commission. Look at that report. That report says that
people have less money in their pockets, and that is the result of
these policies that they did their first 2 years.
This is what the President said. That is what they did. And today
they are out here saying that we are not giving this issue a good
opportunity to be heard. It will be heard, and we will have a solution.
But this is what they said, and that is what they did.
Mr. HALL of Ohio. Mr. Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman
from Texas [Mr. Doggett].
Mr. DOGGETT. Mr. Speaker, America needs a raise. The minimum wage,
its purchasing power, is approaching a 40-year low, almost as old as I
am, since the minimum wage has had purchasing power with as little
capability as it does at present.
The gentleman from Pennsylvania says that it is not germane to this
debate to talk about the minimum wage, the need for the American people
to
[[Page H4316]]
have a raise. Well, let me tell you, it is mighty germane to the
working people of this country that they get a raise. It may not be
germane to the elitist, but it is germane to the people that are out
there scrubbing the floors, tending to the nursing homes, picking the
peas, as my colleague from Texas said, serving the meals at the fast
food restaurants. It is very germane to them. For many it is a question
of whether or not they can get out of poverty by having the means to do
that.
All that stands between us today and getting a raise for the American
people are 10 Members of the Republican side coming over and joining a
few of their colleagues from last week and so many Democrats, because
it was a mere 10 Republican votes that defeated the raise for America
when we considered this issue last week.
If they will simply have the courage to vote the same way they spoke
at the press conference when they were facing the TV cameras and said
they wanted to give even more than a 90-cent raise, if they will simply
vote with us today, those 10 Members who defected, with all the arm
twisting that occurred from the Republican leadership last week, then
America will get a raise.
Of course, I realize not every Republican Member is going to do that.
In fact, the one thing that has changed since last week is that Mr.
Boehner, the chair of the Republican Conference, has said, ``I will
commit suicide before I vote on a clean minimum wage bill.''
Can you imagine that, hari-kari right here on the floor of the House,
falling on their sword? True, the Republicans have been falling on
their political swords for the last 16 months, but we finally have a
chance for them today to see the light, to join us in doing something
to give the people of America a raise that they very much deserve.
Ms. PRYCE. Mr. Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to my good friend, the
gentleman from the great Commonwealth of Pennsylvania [Mr. Gekas].
(Mr. GEKAS asked and was given permission to revise and extend his
remarks.)
Mr. GEKAS. Mr. Speaker, the gentleman from Texas, who just addressed
the House most eloquently, showed his powerful advocacy for a minimum
wage. This gentleman, I am sure if I search the Congressional Record,
when he was in the majority just 2 years ago, along with the President
of the United States, did not make such an eloquent speech.
Mr. DOGGETT. Mr. Speaker, will the gentleman yield to a freshman
Member who was not here 2 years ago and this is my first opportunity to
raise the minimum wage?
Mr. GEKAS. Mr. Speaker, I said I was going to search the Record to
determine if any similar speeches were made by his colleagues on his
side. Do you understand? To see whether or not eloquent speeches of
that type were made in favor of a minimum wage. But they could not,
because the President of the United States was against the minimum
wage, the Secretary of Labor was against the minimum wage elevation,
and so were other functionaries of the Democrat Party.
Now, seeing that the Republicans have taken over in 1994, all of a
sudden they see it as a grand scheme, do the Democrats, to embarrass
the Republicans about a minimum wage controversy, which is not that
great a controversy, yet it sounds good and makes people feel good to
know that the Democrats, 2 years after they were in the majority, are
in favor of a minimum wage.
What has happened to change the President's mind and all of a sudden
he is an advocate of the elevation of the minimum wage, to the
Secretary of Labor and to those on that side of the aisle who all of a
sudden are minimum wage advocates?
Meanwhile, we have a bill on the floor, the one this rule governs,
about trying to bring better government into the selection of U.S.
marshals. That is what we ought to be debating ultimately, and to see
whether or not we are strong enough to withstand the temptation to go
into ultra-virus issues like the minimum wage and concentrating on
bringing about better government in the election of U.S. marshals, part
of our law enforcement, who do a wonderful job not in just helping the
courts, but in helping the community.
Mr. HALL of Ohio. Mr. Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the gentlewoman
from Oregon [Ms. Furse].
Ms. FURSE. Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentleman for yielding me time.
Mr. Speaker, I was very interested to hear people talk about how this
was going to be a tax increase. We are some of the few people who
actually paid by taxes from the American people, and if we raise the
minimum wage to $5.15, the minimum wage people working 40 hours a week
would still make less than Members of this House make in 1 month. It is
a shame, it is an outrage, that we are not able to get a vote on the
minimum wage. That is why I am asking for a vote against the previous
question.
I should point out that in Oregon, our legislature raised the minimum
wage to $4.75, and, since 1992, since Bill Clinton has been in office,
our unemployment rate has been halved in Oregon. We are doing very well
in Oregon. We presently have an initiative from the people of Oregon to
raise the minimum wage in Oregon to $6.50. Yet these people here on
this side of the aisle are saying no, we cannot even talk about raising
the minimum wage.
Seventy-five percent of people living on minimum wage, and let me
tell you if you work 40 hours a week, if you lived on minimum wage
today, you would make $8,840 a year, 75 percent of those people are
women; 75 percent are women.
This is anti-women to not allow this vote to be brought to the House
floor. How can we stand here, paid as we are by the American taxpayer,
and not have the opportunity to raise the minimum wage for the women of
this country who are living on less than $9,000 a year? A family of two
is under the poverty level if they make $10,260, so somebody making
$8,000 is way below the poverty level.
I urge my colleagues to vote ``no'' on the previous question. Let us
give the American people a raise. They deserve it.
Ms. PRYCE. Mr. Speaker, I yield such time as he may consume to the
gentleman from Georgia [Mr. Linder].
Mr. LINDER. Mr. Speaker, this is silly season already. Usually it
does not come until August. If this were really an important issue for
people earning $9,000 a year or less, why did not the Democrats, who
owned the House, the Senate, and the White House, mention it 2 years
ago? Do you know how many times the President talked about the minimum
wage in his first 2 years in office? Zero. Not one time.
He has talked about it over 50 times this year, because it is a
political issue, and it is a crass and mean political issue, using as
pawns in this political battle the very people they are pretending to
help.
Raising the minimum wage is income redistribution among the poor. For
every four people you purport to give a $1 increase to, you take one
person off the payroll.
That is not compassion. It is the striking difference between the two
parties, that one party thinks government should set wages, and the
other party believes the economy sets wages.
This argument should be over. There should be zero minimum wage. That
is what the New York Times editorial said, a zero minimum wage. Let
people who want to start on the first rung of the income ladder earn
what they are worth.
Ninety percent of people on minimum wage are not there after 1 year.
Many people on the minimum wage earn also tips that are not reported.
This is a phony argument for phony political reasons, and, if it was
serious, it would have been done 2 years ago.
In addition to that, the minimum wage is simply not germane to this
bill and would not be added even if the previous question were
defeated, because it is not germane to this bill. It is simply an
effort to take up your time and America's time to make political points
that they refused to deal with when they were in power.
Mr. HALL of Ohio. Mr. Speaker, I yield 1 minute to the gentleman from
New Jersey [Mr. Pallone].
Mr. PALLONE. Mr. Speaker, I really differ strongly with the previous
speaker on this issue. First of all, I would say that I do not believe
the minimum wage is a partisan issue. There are a lot of Republicans
who support an increase in the minimum wage. The problem here is the
Republican leadership,
[[Page H4317]]
Speaker Gingrich and the others, who do not want to bring this to the
floor, because they know that if it comes to the floor, the majority of
Democrats and enough Republicans will vote for it that it will actually
pass this House, the Senate, and be signed by the President.
Let us bring it up. What do I care what President Clinton said or
what whoever said in the previous Congress? The fact of the matter is
now we know that this minimum wage is not keeping up with inflation,
and with the people's ability or need and the purchasing power. So it
should be passed now.
The reason the Democrats are doing this as often as we are on the
previous question or on the rule or whatever, is because we are in the
minority and we have no other way to bring it up. We have to keep
raising it, so eventually this Republican leadership will wake up and
recognize that even its own Members, even a lot of the Republicans, are
willing and want this passed and want it brought to the floor.
The time has come. In my home State of New Jersey, we have raised the
minimum wage, and it has been a success and it has not affected
unemployment.
Mr. HALL of Ohio. Mr. Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman
from North Carolina [Mr. Watt].
Mr. WATT of North Carolina. Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentleman for
yielding me time.
Mr. Speaker, I want to address the issue that has been raised by
several of my colleagues that this bill is about the U.S. Marshals
Service. The reason there is no debate about the bill itself is that it
is an absolutely noncontroversial bill, and is brought to this floor
for debate simply so my Republican colleagues can say, ``We brought an
open rule to the floor, and you can amend it in any way you want.''
Well, we want to amend this bill. We want to amend it by attaching a
minimum wage provision that will raise the wages of the American
people.
So what is their response? The first time we say, ``Hey, we have an
amendment,'' they say, ``Oh, no, this is not an open rule. You can't
amend this bill that way. It is not even germane to talk about it on
the floor.''
They do not want to talk about it. You just heard the reason they do
not want to talk about it, because you have got a bunch of extreme
people, some of whom believe there ought not even be a minimum wage in
this country, that people ought to be allowed to work for 5 cents an
hour if the market dictates that. They do not care about what kind of
conditions people are living in, in this country. All they care about
is supporting their corporate, rich constituencies.
They talk about supporting a minimum wage, as long as they are on the
television. They talk about supporting a gas tax cut, as long as they
are on the television. What they will not admit is if we defeat the
previous question on this rule, we can talk about both of those things
in the context of this bill.
Democracy is about debate. Bring it off the television and onto the
floor of Congress and let us debate it. Let us defeat the previous
question on this rule.
Mr. HALL of Ohio. Mr. Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman
from Pennsylvania [Mr. Klink].
{time} 1300
Mr. KLINK. Mr. Speaker, I have heard time and time again that this is
a phony argument. There were some of us 2 years ago on the Committee on
Education and Labor who talked about the need then, 2 years ago in the
previous Congress when our party was leading, that the minimum wage had
to be raised. I would point out that now that the Republicans are in
charge, there is no longer any committee in Congress with the name
labor in its name, which shows, I think, the utmost contempt that that
party has for working men and women.
I have heard my colleagues from the other side of the aisle come down
and talk repeatedly about the fact we do not need a minimum wage. Well,
I come from an area in southwestern Pennsylvania where we have coal
fields and steel mills. And when we did not have workers' protection,
when we did not have minimum wage, we saw people working for next to
nothing. We saw them going into the coal mines. Children were forced to
work. They would go in before the sun came up each morning, go into the
mines, and come out at night when the sun was down, never seeing
daylight. There were no worker protections for them. They had to shop
at the company store, take whatever money they would get, and usually
they ended up owing the company more at the store than they had made.
So they were constantly working themselves into debt.
There is a reason that we have a minimum wage in this country. There
is a reason that those on the lowest end need to make a livable wage,
need to be able to buy food, need to be able to take care of their
families. I will paraphrase a former Republican President, Teddy
Roosevelt, who said that for a man or woman to be able to participate
in this great country's democracy, they have to be able to afford the
absolute minimum, and they have to be able to work and make the money
to pay for the absolute minimum and still have time to dedicate to
their family and dedicate time to their community.
We have seen this Republican Congress attempt to eliminate the
minimum corporate income tax, attempt to cut way back on capital gains
for the large corporations, but when it comes to giving a livable wage,
lifting from beneath the poverty rate the lowest workers in this
country, they constantly try to stifle us. Somewhere between Abraham
Lincoln and Newt Gingrich, this party has reversed its position on
slavery.
Ms. PRYCE. Mr. Speaker, I yield 5 minutes to the gentleman from
Connecticut [Mr. Shays].
Mr. SHAYS. Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentlewoman from Ohio for
yielding me this time.
Mr. Speaker, there are a large number of Republicans who believe that
the minimum wage is destructive and that an increase would be harmful
to our country. There are a number of Republicans who take a different
view. My purpose for standing there today is to encourage my colleagues
to vote to pass the motion for the previous question, but to say that
time is running out.
I understand my colleagues on the other side have been forcing this
issue each and every week. It does force others to deal with it more
quickly than we may have wanted to. But our leadership on this side of
the aisle needs the opportunity to see if there is a way to come
forward with a package that meets the concerns of us to support a
minimum wage and also meets the legitimate concerns of some of my
colleagues.
I would like to tell my colleagues why I support an increase in the
minimum wage, why I agree with my colleague. It is at a 40-year low. If
we do not increase the minimum wage, it will be at a 40-year low. The
minimum wage in 1968 was at the high point in terms of its purchasing
power. If we had indexed for inflation from 1968, that minimum wage
would be $7.08 today, not $4.25.
I believe the modest increase that we voted on in 1989 was fair and
right. I do not believe it caused unemployment, I do not believe it
created higher prices. I believe it lifted up the bottom level. I make
the argument with people on my side of the aisle, and anyone else who
will listen, that I really believe that if we are looking to get people
off of welfare and on to work, we need to lift the minimum wage. But
these are all issues that will be debated and have to be debated, and I
believe they will be debated, quite frankly.
The issue is, should it happen today? And I would encourage all my
Republican colleagues to give our leadership the time to deal with this
issue, to give them time to come and present to us their proposal and
then we can decide if it meets the test. For me, it has to be passage
of minimum wage.
I believe minimum wage will pass, I believe it should pass, and I
look forward to voting for it. But on this procedural question on a
bill that, quite frankly, is not a substantive bill, I would encourage
my colleagues to not be enticed to vote for the minimum wage at this
time.
Mr. HALL of Ohio. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself the balance of my time
to say I do hope that we defeat the previous question. I will ask for a
vote on it.
I look at raising the minimum wage very simply. I have just met a lot
of
[[Page H4318]]
people around the country, at different food banks and soup kitchens,
and they are not making it. A lot of them are working poor, and
sometime during the month they run out of money after they pay for
their rent and pay for their food and they pay for other things. Two or
three days every month, they run out of money.
In my own district I have 66 food banks, and many of these working
poor have to go to these food banks and soup kitchens, most of which
are women and children.
For that reason and other reasons, I would hope that we could get a
chance to vote on the minimum wage. That is why I offered the chance to
vote no on the previous question so we can make that an issue relative
to offering an amendment on the floor on the minimum wage.
Mr. Speaker, I include for the Record the following:
FLOOR PROCEDURE IN THE 104TH CONGRESS; COMPILED BY THE RULES COMMITTEE DEMOCRATS
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
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 None.
Package. closed rule on H.R. 1
within the closed
rule.
H.R. 5*........................ Unfunded Mandates. H. Res. 38 Restrictive; Motion N/A.
adopted 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 2R; 4D.
certain substitutes;
PQ.
H. Res. 43..................... Committee Hearings H. Res. 43 (OJ) Restrictive; N/A.
Scheduling. considered in House
no amendments.
H.R. 101....................... To transfer a H. Res. 51 Open.................. N/A.
parcel of land to
the Taos Pueblo
Indians of New
Mexico.
H.R. 400....................... To provide for the H. Res. 52 Open.................. N/A.
exchange of lands
within Gates of
the Arctic
National Park
Preserve.
H.R. 440....................... To provide for the H. Res. 53 Open.................. N/A.
conveyance of
lands to certain
individuals in
Butte County,
California.
H.R. 2*........................ Line Item Veto.... H. Res. 55 Open; Pre-printing N/A.
gets preference.
H.R. 665*...................... Victim Restitution H. Res. 61 Open; Pre-printing N/A.
Act of 1995. gets preference.
H.R. 666*...................... Exclusionary Rule H. Res. 60 Open; Pre-printing N/A.
Reform Act of gets preference.
1995.
H.R. 667*...................... Violent Criminal H. Res. 63 Restrictive; 10 hr. N/A.
Incarceration Act Time Cap on
of 1995. amendments.
H.R. 668*...................... The Criminal Alien H. Res. 69 Open; Pre-printing N/A.
Deportation gets preference;
Improvement Act. Contains self-
executing provision.
H.R. 728*...................... Local Government H. Res. 79 Restrictive; 10 hr. N/A.
Law Enforcement Time Cap on
Block Grants. amendments; Pre-
printing gets
preference.
H.R. 7*........................ National Security H. Res. 83 Restrictive; 10 hr. N/A.
Revitalization Time Cap on
Act. amendments; Pre-
printing gets
preference; PQ2.
H.R. 729*...................... Death Penalty/ N/A Restrictive; brought N/A.
Habeas. up under UC with a 6
hr. time cap on
amendments.
S. 2........................... Senate Compliance. N/A Closed; Put on None.
Suspension Calendar
over Democratic
objection.
H.R. 831....................... To Permanently H. Res. 88 Restrictive; makes in 1D.
Extend the Health order only the
Insurance Gibbons amendment;
Deduction for the Waives all points of
Self-Employed. order; Contains self-
executing provision;
PQ.
H.R. 830*...................... The Paperwork H. Res. 91 Open.................. N/A.
Reduction Act.
H.R. 889....................... Emergency H. Res. 92 Restrictive; makes in 1D.
Supplemental/ order only the Obey
Rescinding substitute.
Certain Budget
Authority.
H.R. 450*...................... Regulatory H. Res. 93 Restrictive; 10 hr. N/A.
Moratorium. Time Cap on
amendments; Pre-
printing gets
preference.
H.R. 1022*..................... Risk Assessment... H. Res. 96 Restrictive; 10 hr. N/A.
Time Cap on
amendments.
H.R. 926*...................... Regulatory H. Res. 100 Open.................. N/A.
Flexibility.
H.R. 925*...................... Private Property H. Res. 101 Restrictive; 12 hr. 1D.
Protection Act. time cap 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 H. Res. 105 Restrictive; 8 hr. 1D.
Litigation Reform time cap on
Act. 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. N/A.
Accountability time cap on
Act of 1995. amendments; Pre-
printing gets
preference.
H.R. 956*...................... Product Liability H. Res. 109 Restrictive; makes in 8D; 7R.
and Legal Reform order only 15 germane
Act. amendments and denies
64 germane amendments
from being
considered; PQ.
H.R. 1158...................... Making Emergency H. Res. 115 Restrictive; Combines N/A.
Supplemental emergency H.R. 1158 &
Appropriations nonemergency 1159 and
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.
H.J. Res. 73*.................. Term Limits....... H. Res. 116 Restrictive; Makes in 1D; 3R
order only 4
amendments considered
under a ``Queen of
the Hill'' procedure
and denies 21 germane
amendments from being
considered.
H.R. 4*........................ Welfare Reform.... H. Res. 119 Restrictive; Makes in 5D; 26R.
order only 31
perfecting amendments
and two substitutes;
Denies 130 germane
amendments from being
considered; The
substitutes are to be
considered under a
``Queen of the Hill''
procedure; All points
of order are waived
against the
amendments.
H.R. 1271*..................... Family Privacy Act H. Res. 125 Open.................. N/A.
H.R. 660*...................... Housing for Older H. Res. 126 Open.................. N/A.
Persons Act.
H.R. 1215*..................... The Contract With H. Res. 129 Restrictive; Self 1D.
America Tax Executes language
Relief Act of that makes tax cuts
1995. contingent on the
adoption of a
balanced budget plan
and strikes section
3006. Makes in order
only one substitute.
Waives all points of
order against the
bill, substitute made
in order as original
text and Gephardt
substitute.
H.R. 483....................... Medicare Select H. Res. 130 Restrictive; waives cl 1D.
Extension. 2(1)(6) of rule XI
against the bill;
makes H.R. 1391 in
order as original
text; makes in order
only the Dingell
substitute; allows
Commerce Committee to
file a report on the
bill at any time.
H.R. 655....................... Hydrogen Future H. Res. 136 Open.................. N/A.
Act.
H.R. 1361...................... Coast Guard H. Res. 139 Open; waives sections N/A.
Authorization. 302(f) and 308(a) of
the Congressional
Budget Act against
the bill's
consideration and the
committee substitute;
waives cl 5(a) of
rule XXI against the
committee substitute.
H.R. 961....................... Clean Water Act... H. Res. 140 Open; pre-printing N/A.
gets preference;
waives sections
302(f) and 602(b) of
the Budget Act
against the bill's
consideration; waives
cl 7 of rule XVI, cl
5(a) of rule XXI and
section 302(f) of the
Budget Act against
the committee
substitute. Makes in
order Shuster
substitute as first
order of business.
H.R. 535....................... Corning National H. Res. 144 Open.................. N/A.
Fish Hatchery
Conveyance Act.
H.R. 584....................... Conveyance of the H. Res. 145 Open.................. N/A.
Fairport National
Fish Hatchery to
the State of Iowa.
H.R. 614....................... Conveyance of the H. Res. 146 Open.................. N/A.
New London
National Fish
Hatchery
Production
Facility.
H. Con. Res. 67................ Budget Resolution. H. Res. 149 Restrictive; Makes in 3D; 1R.
order 4 substitutes
under regular order;
Gephardt, Neumann/
Solomon, Payne/Owens,
President's Budget if
printed in Record on
5/17/95; waives all
points of order
against substitutes
and concurrent
resolution; suspends
application of Rule
XLIX with respect to
the resolution; self-
executes Agriculture
language; PQ.
H.R. 1561...................... American Overseas H. Res. 155 Restrictive; Requires N/A.
Interests Act of amendments to be
1995. printed in the Record
prior to their
consideration; 10 hr.
time cap; waives cl
2(1)(6) of rule XI
against the bill's
consideration; Also
waives sections
302(f), 303(a),
308(a) and 402(a)
against the bill's
consideration and the
committee amendment
in order as original
text; waives cl 5(a)
of rule XXI against
the amendment;
amendment
consideration is
closed at 2:30 p.m.
on May 25, 1995. Self-
executes provision
which removes section
2210 from the bill.
This was done at the
request of the Budget
Committee.
H.R. 1530...................... National Defense H. Res. 164 Restrictive; Makes in 36R; 18D; 2
Authorization Act order only the Bipartisan.
FY 1996. amendments printed in
the report; waives
all points of order
against the bill,
substitute and
amendments printed in
the report. Gives the
Chairman en bloc
authority. Self-
executes a provision
which strikes section
807 of the bill;
provides for an
additional 30 min. of
debate on Nunn-Lugar
section; Allows Mr.
Clinger to offer a
modification of his
amendment with the
concurrence of Ms.
Collins; PQ.
H.R. 1817...................... Military H. Res. 167 Open; waives cl. 2 and N/A.
Construction cl. 6 of rule XXI
Appropriations; against the bill; 1
FY 1996. hr. general debate;
Uses House passed
budget numbers as
threshold for
spending amounts
pending passage of
Budget; PQ.
H.R. 1854...................... Legislative Branch H. Res. 169 Restrictive; Makes in 5R; 4D; 2
Appropriations. order only 11 Bipartisan.
amendments; waives
sections 302(f) and
308(a) of the Budget
Act against the bill
and cl. 2 and cl. 6
of rule XXI against
the bill. All points
of order are waived
against the
amendments; PQ.
H.R. 1868...................... Foreign Operations H. Res. 170 Open; waives cl. 2, N/A.
Appropriations. cl. 5(b), and cl. 6
of rule XXI against
the bill; makes in
order the Gilman
amendments as first
order of business;
waives all points of
order against the
amendments; if
adopted they will be
considered as
original text; waives
cl. 2 of rule XXI
against the
amendments printed in
the report. Pre-
printing gets
priority (Hall)
(Menendez) (Goss)
(Smith, NJ); PQ.
[[Page H4319]]
H.R. 1905...................... Energy & Water H. Res. 171 Open; waives cl. 2 and N/A.
Appropriations. cl. 6 of rule XXI
against the bill;
makes in order the
Shuster amendment as
the first order of
business; waives all
points of order
against the
amendment; if adopted
it will be considered
as original text. Pre-
printing gets
priority.
H.J. Res. 79................... Constitutional H. Res. 173 Closed; provides one N/A.
Amendment to hour of general
Permit Congress debate and one motion
and States to to recommit with or
Prohibit the without instructions;
Physical if there are
Desecration of instructions, the MO
the American Flag. is debatable for 1
hr; PQ.
H.R. 1944...................... Recissions Bill... H. Res. 175 Restrictive; Provides N/A.
for consideration of
the bill in the
House; Permits the
Chairman of the
Appropriations
Committee to offer
one amendment which
is unamendable;
waives all points of
order against the
amendment; PQ.
H.R. 1868 (2nd rule)........... Foreign Operations H. Res. 177 Restrictive; Provides N/A.
Appropriations. for further
consideration of the
bill; makes in order
only the four
amendments printed in
the rules report (20
min. each). Waives
all points of order
against the
amendments; Prohibits
intervening motions
in the Committee of
the Whole; Provides
for an automatic rise
and report following
the disposition of
the amendments; PQ.
H.R. 1977 *Rule Defeated*...... Interior H. Res. 185 Open; waives sections N/A.
Appropriations. 302(f) and 308(a) of
the Budget Act and cl
2 and cl 6 of rule
XXI; provides that
the bill be read by
title; waives all
points of order
against the Tauzin
amendment; self-
executes Budget
Committee amendment;
waives cl 2(e) of
rule XXI against
amendments to the
bill; Pre-printing
gets priority; PQ.
H.R. 1977...................... Interior H. Res. 187 Open; waives sections N/A.
Appropriations. 302(f), 306 and
308(a) of the Budget
Act; waives clauses 2
and 6 of rule XXI
against provisions in
the bill; waives all
points of order
against the Tauzin
amendment; provides
that the bill be read
by title; self-
executes Budget
Committee amendment
and makes NEA funding
subject to House
passed authorization;
waives cl 2(e) of
rule XXI against the
amendments to the
bill; Pre-printing
gets priority; PQ.
H.R. 1976...................... Agriculture H. Res. 188 Open; waives clauses 2 N/A.
Appropriations. and 6 of rule XXI
against provisions in
the bill; provides
that the bill be read
by title; Makes Skeen
amendment first order
of business, if
adopted the amendment
will be considered as
base text (10 min.);
Pre-printing gets
priority; PQ.
H.R. 1977 (3rd rule)........... Interior H. Res. 189 Restrictive; provides N/A.
Appropriations. for the further
consideration of the
bill; allows only
amendments pre-
printed before July
14th to be
considered; limits
motions to rise.
H.R. 2020...................... Treasury Postal H. Res. 190 Open; waives cl. 2 and N/A.
Appropriations. cl. 6 of rule XXI
against provisions in
the bill; provides
the bill be read by
title; Pre-printing
gets priority; PQ.
H.J. Res. 96................... Disapproving MFN H. Res. 193 Restrictive; provides N/A.
for China. for consideration in
the House of H.R.
2058 (90 min.) And
H.J. Res. 96 (1 hr).
Waives certain
provisions of the
Trade Act.
H.R. 2002...................... Transportation H. Res. 194 Open; waives cl. 3 0f N/A.
Appropriations. rule XIII and section
401 (a) of the CBA
against consideration
of the bill; waives
cl. 6 and cl. 2 of
rule XXI against
provisions in the
bill; Makes in order
the Clinger/Solomon
amendment waives all
points of order
against the amendment
(Line Item Veto);
provides the bill be
read by title; Pre-
printing gets
priority; PQ. *RULE
AMENDED*.
H.R. 70........................ Exports of Alaskan H. Res. 197 Open; Makes in order N/A.
North Slope Oil. the Resources
Committee amendment
in the nature of a
substitute as
original text; Pre-
printing gets
priority; Provides a
Senate hook-up with
S. 395.
H.R. 2076...................... Commerce, Justice H. Res. 198 Open; waives cl. 2 and N/A.
Appropriations. cl. 6 of rule XXI
against provisions in
the bill; Pre-
printing gets
priority; provides
the bill be read by
title..
H.R. 2099...................... VA/HUD H. Res. 201 Open; waives cl. 2 and N/A.
Appropriations. cl. 6 of rule XXI
against provisions in
the bill; Provides
that the amendment in
part 1 of the report
is the first
business, if adopted
it will be considered
as base text (30
min.); waives all
points of order
against the Klug and
Davis amendments; Pre-
printing gets
priority; Provides
that the bill be read
by title.
S. 21.......................... Termination of H. Res. 204 Restrictive; 3 hours ID.
U.S. Arms Embargo of general debate;
on Bosnia. Makes in order an
amendment to be
offered by the
Minority Leader or a
designee (1 hr); If
motion to recommit
has instructions it
can only be offered
by the Minority
Leader or a designee.
H.R. 2126...................... Defense H. Res. 205 Open; waives cl. N/A.
Appropriations. 2(l)(6) of rule XI
and section 306 of
the Congressional
Budget Act against
consideration of the
bill; waives cl. 2
and cl. 6 of rule XXI
against provisions in
the bill; self-
executes a strike of
sections 8021 and
8024 of the bill as
requested by the
Budget Committee; Pre-
printing gets
priority; Provides
the bill be read by
title.
H.R. 1555...................... Communications Act H. Res. 207 Restrictive; waives 2R/3D/3 Bi-
of 1995. sec. 302(f) of the partisan.
Budget Act against
consideration of the
bill; Makes in order
the Commerce
Committee amendment
as original text and
waives sec. 302(f) of
the Budget Act and
cl. 5(a) of rule XXI
against the
amendment; Makes in
order the Bliely
amendment (30 min.)
as the first order of
business, if adopted
it will be original
text; makes in order
only the amendments
printed in the report
and waives all points
of order against the
amendments; provides
a Senate hook-up with
S. 652.
H.R. 2127...................... Labor/HHS H. Res. 208 Open; Provides that N/A.
Appropriations the first order of
Act. business will be the
managers amendments
(10 min.), if adopted
they will be
considered as base
text; waives cl. 2
and cl. 6 of rule XXI
against provisions in
the bill; waives all
points of order
against certain
amendments printed in
the report; Pre-
printing gets
priority; Provides
the bill be read by
title; PQ.
H.R. 1594...................... Economically H. Res. 215 Open; 2 hr of gen. N/A.
Targeted debate. makes in
Investments. order the committee
substitute as
original text.
H.R. 1655...................... Intelligence H. Res. 216 Restrictive; waives N/A.
Authorization. sections 302(f),
308(a) and 401(b) of
the Budget Act. Makes
in order the
committee substitute
as modified by Govt.
Reform amend
(striking sec. 505)
and an amendment
striking title VII.
Cl 7 of rule XVI and
cl 5(a) of rule XXI
are waived against
the substitute.
Sections 302(f) and
401(b) of the CBA are
also waived against
the substitute.
Amendments must also
be pre-printed in the
Congressional record.
H.R. 1162...................... Deficit Reduction H. Res. 218 Open; waives cl 7 of N/A.
Lock Box. rule XVI against the
committee substitute
made in order as
original text; Pre-
printing gets
priority.
H.R. 1670...................... Federal H. Res. 219 Open; waives sections N/A.
Acquisition 302(f) and 308(a) of
Reform Act of the Budget Act
1995. against consideration
of the bill; bill
will be read by
title; waives cl 5(a)
of rule XXI and
section 302(f) of the
Budget Act against
the committee
substitute. Pre-
printing gets
priority.
H.R. 1617...................... To Consolidate and H. Res. 222 Open; waives section N/A.
Reform Workforce 302(f) and 401(b) of
Development and the Budget Act
Literacy Programs against the
Act (CAREERS). substitute made in
order as original
text (H.R. 2332), cl.
5(a) of rule XXI is
also waived against
the substitute.
provides for
consideration of the
managers amendment
(10 min.) If adopted,
it is considered as
base text.
H.R. 2274...................... National Highway H. Res. 224 Open; waives section N/A.
System 302(f) of the Budget
Designation Act Act against
of 1995. consideration of the
bill; Makes H.R. 2349
in order as original
text; waives section
302(f) of the Budget
Act against the
substitute; provides
for the consideration
of a managers
amendment (10 min.)
If adopted, it is
considered as base
text; Pre-printing
gets priority; PQ.
H.R. 927....................... Cuban Liberty and H. Res. 225 Restrictive; waives cl 2R/2D
Democratic 2(L)(2)(B) of rule XI
Solidarity Act of against consideration
1995. of the bill; makes in
order H.R. 2347 as
base text; waives cl
7 of rule XVI against
the substitute; Makes
Hamilton amendment
the first amendment
to be considered (1
hr). Makes in order
only amendments
printed in the report.
H.R. 743....................... The Teamwork for H. Res. 226 Open; waives cl N/A.
Employees and 2(l)(2)(b) of rule XI
managers Act of against consideration
1995. of the bill; makes in
order the committee
amendment as original
text; Pre-printing
get priority.
H.R. 1170...................... 3-Judge Court for H. Res. 227 Open; makes in order a N/A.
Certain committee amendment
Injunctions. as original text; Pre-
printing gets
priority.
H.R. 1601...................... International H. Res. 228 Open; makes in order a N/A.
Space Station committee amendment
Authorization Act as original text; pre-
of 1995. printing gets
priority.
H.J. Res. 108.................. Making Continuing H. Res. 230 Closed; Provides for ..............
Appropriations the immediate
for FY 1996. consideration of the
CR; one motion to
recommit which may
have instructions
only if offered by
the Minority Leader
or a designee.
H.R. 2405...................... Omnibus Civilian H. Res. 234 Open; self-executes a N/A.
Science provision striking
Authorization Act section 304(b)(3) of
of 1995. the bill (Commerce
Committee request);
Pre-printing gets
priority.
H.R. 2259...................... To Disapprove H. Res. 237 Restrictive; waives cl 1D
Certain 2(l)(2)(B) of rule XI
Sentencing against the bill's
Guideline consideration; makes
Amendments. in order the text of
the Senate bill S.
1254 as original
text; Makes in order
only a Conyers
substitute; provides
a senate hook-up
after adoption.
H.R. 2425...................... Medicare H. Res. 238 Restrictive; waives 1D
Preservation Act. all points of order
against the bill's
consideration; makes
in order the text of
H.R. 2485 as original
text; waives all
points of order
against H.R. 2485;
makes in order only
an amendment offered
by the Minority
Leader or a designee;
waives all points of
order against the
amendment; waives cl
5 of rule
XXI (\3/5\
requirement on votes
raising taxes); PQ.
H.R. 2492...................... Legislative Branch H. Res. 239 Restrictive; provides N/A.
Appropriations for consideration of
Bill. the bill in the House.
H.R. 2491...................... 7 Year Balanced H. Res. 245 Restrictive; makes in 1D
H. Con. Res. 109............... Budget order H.R. 2517 as
Reconciliation original text; waives
Social Security all pints of order
Earnings Test against the bill;
Reform. Makes in order only
H.R. 2530 as an
amendment only if
offered by the
Minority Leader or a
designee; waives all
points of order
against the
amendment; waives cl
5 of rule
XXI (\3/5\
requirement on votes
raising taxes); PQ.
H.R. 1833...................... Partial Birth H. Res. 251 Closed................ N/A.
Abortion Ban Act
of 1995.
H.R. 2546...................... D.C. H. Res. 252 Restrictive; waives N/A
Appropriations FY all points of order
1996. against the bill's
consideration; Makes
in order the Walsh
amendment as the
first order of
business (10 min.);
if adopted it is
considered as base
text; waives cl 2 and
6 of rule XXI against
the bill; makes in
order the Bonilla,
Gunderson and
Hostettler amendments
(30 min.); waives all
points of order
against the
amendments; debate on
any further
amendments is limited
to 30 min. each.
[[Page H4320]]
H.J. Res. 115.................. Further Continuing H. Res. 257 Closed; Provides for N/A
Appropriations the immediate
for FY 1996. consideration of the
CR; one motion to
recommit which may
have instructions
only if offered by
the Minority Leader
or a designee.
H.R. 2586...................... Temporary Increase H. Res. 258 Restrictive; Provides 5R
in the Statutory for the immediate
Debt Limit. consideration of the
CR; one motion to
recommit which may
have instructions
only if offered by
the Minority Leader
or a designee; self-
executes 4 amendments
in the rule; Solomon,
Medicare Coverage of
Certain Anti-Cancer
Drug Treatments,
Habeas Corpus Reform,
Chrysler (MI); makes
in order the Walker
amend (40 min.) on
regulatory reform.
H.R. 2539...................... ICC Termination... H. Res. 259 Open; waives section ..............
302(f) and section
308(a).
H.J. Res. 115.................. Further Continuing H. Res. 261 Closed; provides for N/A.
Appropriations the immediate
for FY 1996. consideration of a
motion by the
Majority Leader or
his designees to
dispose of the Senate
amendments (1hr).
H.R. 2586...................... Temporary Increase H. Res. 262 Closed; provides for N/A.
in the Statutory the immediate
Limit on the consideration of a
Public Debt. motion by the
Majority Leader or
his designees to
dispose of the Senate
amendments (1hr).
H. Res. 250.................... House Gift Rule H. Res. 268 Closed; provides for 2R
Reform. consideration of the
bill in the House; 30
min. of debate; makes
in order the Burton
amendment and the
Gingrich en bloc
amendment (30 min.
each); waives all
points of order
against the
amendments; Gingrich
is only in order if
Burton fails or is
not offered.
H.R. 2564...................... Lobbying H. Res. 269 Open; waives cl. N/A.
Disclosure Act of 2(l)(6) of rule XI
1995. against the bill's
consideration; waives
all points of order
against the Istook
and McIntosh
amendments.
H.R. 2606...................... Prohibition on H. Res. 273 Restrictive; waives N/A.
Funds for Bosnia all points of order
Deployment. against the bill's
consideration;
provides one motion
to amend if offered
by the Minority
Leader or designee (1
hr non-amendable);
motion to recommit
which may have
instructions only if
offered by Minority
Leader or his
designee; if Minority
Leader motion is not
offered debate time
will be extended by 1
hr.
H.R. 1788...................... Amtrak Reform and H. Res. 289 Open; waives all N/A.
Privatization Act points of order
of 1995. against the bill's
consideration; makes
in order the
Transportation
substitute modified
by the amend in the
report; Bill read by
title; waives all
points of order
against the
substitute; makes in
order a managers
amend as the first
order of business, if
adopted it is
considered base text
(10 min.); waives all
points of order
against the
amendment; Pre-
printing gets
priority.
H.R. 1350...................... Maritime Security H. Res. 287 Open; makes in order N/A.
Act of 1995. the committee
substitute as
original text; makes
in order a managers
amendment which if
adopted is considered
as original text (20
min.) unamendable;
pre-printing gets
priority.
H.R. 2621...................... To Protect Federal H. Res. 293 Closed; provides for N/A.
Trust Funds. the adoption of the
Ways & Means
amendment printed in
the report. 1 hr. of
general debate; PQ.
H.R. 1745...................... Utah Public Lands H. Res. 303 Open; waives cl N/A.
Management Act of 2(l)(6) of rule XI
1995. and sections 302(f)
and 311(a) of the
Budget Act against
the bill's
consideration. Makes
in order the
Resources substitute
as base text and
waives cl 7 of rule
XVI and sections
302(f) and 308(a) of
the Budget Act; makes
in order a managers'
amend as the first
order of business, if
adopted it is
considered base text
(10 min)..
H. Res. 304.................... Providing for N/A Closed; makes in order 1D; 2R
Debate and three resolutions;
Consideration of H.R. 2770 (Dorman),
Three Measures H. Res. 302 (Buyer),
Relating to U.S. and H. Res. 306
Troop Deployments (Gephardt); 1 hour of
in Bosnia. debate on each..
H. Res. 309.................... Revised Budget H. Res. 309 Closed; provides 2 N/A.
Resolution. hours of general
debate in the House;
PQ.
H.R. 558....................... Texas Low-Level H. Res. 313 Open; pre-printing N/A.
Radioactive Waste gets priority.
Disposal Compact
Consent Act.
H.R. 2677...................... The National Parks H. Res. 323 Closed; consideration N/A.
and National in the House; self-
Wildlife Refuge executes Young
Systems Freedom amendment.
Act of 1995.
PROCEDURE IN THE 104TH CONGRESS 2D SESSION
H.R. 1643...................... To authorize the H. Res. 334 Closed; provides to N/A.
extension of take the bill from
nondiscriminatory the Speaker's table
treatment (MFN) with the Senate
to the products amendment, and
of Bulgaria. consider in the House
the motion printed in
the Rules Committee
report; 1 hr. of
general debate;
previous question is
considered as
ordered. ** NR; PQ.
H.J. Res. 134.................. Making continuing H. Res. 336 Closed; provides to N/A.
H. Con. Res. 131............... appropriations/ take from the
establishing Speaker's table H.J.
procedures making Res. 134 with the
the transmission Senate amendment and
of the continuing concur with the
resolution H.J. Senate amendment with
Res. 134. an amendment (H. Con.
Res. 131) which is
self-executed in the
rule. The rule
provides further that
the bill shall not be
sent back to the
Senate until the
Senate agrees to the
provisions of H. Con.
Res. 131. ** NR; PQ.
H.R. 1358...................... Conveyance of H. Res. 338 Closed; provides to N/A.
National Marine take the bill from
Fisheries Service the Speakers table
Laboratory at with the Senate
Gloucester, amendment, and
Massachusetts. consider in the house
the motion printed in
the Rules Committee
report; 1 hr. of
general debate;
previous quesetion is
considered as
ordered. ** NR; PQ.
H.R. 2924...................... Social Security H. Res. 355 Closed; ** NR; PQ..... N/A.
Guarantee Act.
H.R. 2854...................... The Agricultural H. Res. 366 Restrictive; waives 5D; 9R; 2
Market Transition all points of order Bipartisan.
Program. against the bill; 2
hrs of general
debate; makes in
order a committee
substitute as
original text and
waives all points of
order against the
substitute; makes in
order only the 16
amends printed in the
report and waives all
points of order
against the
amendments;
circumvents unfunded
mandates law;
Chairman has en bloc
authority for amends
in report (20 min.)
on each en bloc; PQ.
H.R. 994....................... Regulatory Sunset H. Res. 368 Open rule; makes in N/A.
& Review Act of order the Hyde
1995. substitute printed in
the Record as
original text; waives
cl 7 of rule XVI
against the
substitute; Pre-
printing gets
priority; vacates the
House action on S.
219 and provides to
take the bill from
the Speakers table
and consider the
Senate bill; allows
Chrmn. Clinger a
motion to strike all
after the enacting
clause of the Senate
bill and insert the
text of H.R. 994 as
passed by the House
(1 hr) debate; waives
germaneness against
the motion; provides
if the motion is
adopted that it is in
order for the House
to insist on its
amendments and
request a conference.
H.R. 3021...................... To Guarantee the H. Res. 371 Closed rule; gives one N/A.
Continuing Full motion to recommit,
Investment of which if it contains
Social security instructions, may
and Other Federal only if offered by
Funds in the Minority Leader
Obligations of or his designee. **
the United States. NR.
H.R. 3019...................... A Further H. Res. 372 Restrictive; self- 2D/2R.
Downpayment executes CBO language
Toward a Balanced regarding contingency
Budget. funds in section 2 of
the rule; makes in
order only the
amendments printed in
the report; Lowey (20
min), Istook (20
min), Crapo (20 min),
Obey (1 hr); waives
all points of order
against the
amendments; give one
motion to recommit,
which if contains
instructions, may
only if offered by
the Minority Leader
or his designee. **
NR.
H.R. 2703...................... The Effective H. Res. 380 Restrictive; makes in 6D; 7R; 4
Death Penalty and order only the Bipartisan.
Public Safety Act amendments printed in
of 1996. the report; waives
all points of orer
against the
amendments; gives
Judiciary Chairman en
bloc authority (20
min.) on enblocs;
provides a Senate
hook-up with S. 735.
** NR.
H.R. 2202...................... The Immigration H. Res. 384 Restrictive; waives 12D; 19R; 1
and National all points of order Bipartisan.
Interest Act of against the bill and
1995. amendments in the
report except for
those arising under
sec. 425(a) of the
Budget Act (unfunded
mandates); 2 hrs. of
general debate on the
bill; makes in order
the committee
substitute as base
text; makes in order
only the amends in
the report; gives the
Judiciary Chairman en
bloc authority (20
min.) of debate on
the en blocs; self-
executes the Smith
(TX) amendment re:
employee verification
program; PQ.
H.J. Res. 165.................. Making further H. Res. 386 Closed; provides for N/A.
continuing the consideration of
appropriations the CR in the House
for FY 1996. and gives one motion
to recommit which may
contain instructions
only if offered by
the Minority Leader;
the rule also waives
cl 4(b) of rule XI
against the
following: an omnibus
appropriations bill,
another CR, a bill
extending the debt
limit. ** NR.
H.R. 125....................... The Gun Crime H. Res. 388 Closed; self-executes N/A
Enforcement and an amendment;
Second Amendment provides one motion
Restoration Act to recommit which may
of 1996. contain instructions
only if offered by
the Minority Leader
or his designee. **
NR.
H.R. 3136...................... The Contract With H. Res. 391 Closed; provides for N/A
America the consideration of
Advancement Act the bill in the
of 1996. House; self-executes
an amendment in the
Rules report; waives
all points of order,
except sec.
425(a)(unfunded
mandates) of the CBA,
against the bill's
consideration; orders
the PQ except 1 hr.
of general debate
between the Chairman
and Ranking Member of
Ways and Means; one
Archer amendment (10
min.); one motion to
recommit which may
contain instructions
only if offered by
the Minority Leader
or his designee;
Provides a Senate
hookup if the Senate
passes S. 4 by March
30, 1996. **NR.
H.R. 3103...................... The Health H. Res. 392 Restrictive: 2 hrs. of N/A
Coverage general debate (45
Availability and min. split by Ways
Affordability Act and Means) (45 split
of 1996. by Commerce) (30
split by Economic and
Educational
Opportunities); self-
executes H.R. 3160 as
modified by the
amendment in the
Rules report as
original text; waives
all points of order,
except sec. 425(a)
(unfunded mandates)
of the CBA; makes in
order a Democratic
substitute (1 hr.)
waives all points of
order, except sec.
425(a) (unfunded
mandates) of the CBA,
against the
amendment; one motion
to recommit which may
contain instructions
only if offered by
the Minority Leader
or his designee;
waives cl 5(c) of
Rule XXI (requiring 3/
5 vote on any tax
increase) on votes on
the bill, amendments
or conference reports.
H.J. Res. 159.................. Tax Limitation H. Res. 395 Restrictive; provides ID
Constitutional for consideration of
Amendment. the bill in the
House; 3 hrs of
general debate; Makes
in order H.J. Res.
169 as original text;
allows for an
amendment to be
offered by the
Minority Leader or
his designee (1 hr)
** NR.
H.R. 842....................... Truth in Budgeting H. Res. 396 Open; 2 hrs. of N/A
Act. general debate; Pre-
printing gets
priority.
H.R. 2715...................... Paperwork H. Res. 409 Open; Preprinting get N/A
Elimination Act priority.
of 1996.
[[Page H4321]]
H.R. 1675...................... National Wildlife H. Res. 410 Open; Makes the Young N/A
Refuge amendment printed in
Improvement Act the 4/16/96 Record in
of 1995. order as original
text; waives cl 7 of
rule XVI against the
amendment;
Preprinting gets
priority; **NR.
H.J. Res. 175.................. Further Continuing H. Res. 411 Closed; provides for N/A
Appropriations consideration of the
for FY 1996. bill in the House;
one motion to
recommit which, if
containing
instructions, may be
offered by the
Minority Leader or
his designee. **NR.
H.R. 2641...................... United States H. Res. 418 Open; Pre-printing N/A
Marshals Service gets priority; Senate
Improvement Act hook-up.
of 1996.
H.R. 2149...................... The Ocean Shipping H. Res. 419 Open; Makes in order a N/A
Reform Act. managers amendment as
the first order of
business (10 min.);
if adopted it is
considered as base
text; waives cl 7 of
rule XVI against the
managers amendment;
Pre-printing gets
priority; makes in
order an Oberstar en
bloc amendment..
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
* Contract Bills, 67% restrictive; 33% open. ** All legislation 1st Session, 53% restrictive; 47% open. *** All
legislation 2d Session, 90% restrictive; 10% open. **** All legislation 104th Congress, 61% restrictive; 39%
open. ***** NR indicates that the legislation being considered by the House for amendment has circumvented
standard procedure and was never reported from any House committee. ****** PQ Indicates that previous question
was ordered on the resolution. ******* Restrictive rules are those which limit the number of amendments which
can be offered, and include so-called modified open 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 103d Congress. N/A means not available.
Mr. HALL of Ohio. Mr. Speaker, I yield back the balance of my time.
Ms. PRYCE. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself the balance of my time.
Mr. Speaker, let me stress that this is more than an open rule, it
is, in fact, a wide open rule. Any Member can be heard on any germane
amendment to the bill at the appropriate time. By ordering the previous
question and adopting this fair resolution, the House will have an
opportunity for a full and open debate on important legislation
designed to improve the overall quality and level of professionalism in
the U.S. Marshals Service.
I just want to remind everybody what we are talking about here. We
are talking about the U.S. Marshals Service.
Mr. Speaker, let me point out that we have been through this same
chicanery before, just last week. We checked with the appropriate
nonpartisan parliamentary experts in this House and, to a person, they
confirmed that the amendment that the Democrats want to make in order
under this rule is completely nongermane to the rule and to the bill.
So do not be fooled. The previous question vote is not a vote on the
minimum wage, it is a vote on whether to close the debate and to vote
for this rule.
Mr. Speaker, House rules and precedents make it very clear that it is
not in order to amend a rule like this to make in order a nongermane
amendment to the bill in question. In other words, even if the minority
defeated the previous question and offered their amendment, this would
be ruled out of order for violating the rules of this House.
At this point, Mr. Speaker, I insert for the Record the following
material:
The Previous Question Vote: What it Means
House Rule XVII (``Previous Question'') provides in part
that: There shall be a motion for the previous question,
which, being ordered by a majority of the Members voting, if
a quorum is present, shall have the effect to cut off all
debate and bring the House to a direct vote upon the
immediate question or questions on which it has been asked or
ordered.
In the case of a special rule or order of business
resolution reported from the House Rules Committee, providing
for the consideration of a specified legislative measure, the
previous question is moved following the one hour of debate
allowed for under House Rules.
The vote on the previous question is simply a procedural
vote on whether to proceed to an immediate vote on adopting
the resolution that sets the ground rules for debate and
amendment on the legislation it would make in order.
Therefore, the vote on the previous question has no
substantive legislative or policy implications whatsoever.
THE AMENDMENT PROCESS UNDER SPECIAL RULES REPORTED BY THE RULES COMMITTEE,\1\ 103D CONGRESS V. 104TH CONGRESS
[As of April 30, 1996]
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
103d Congress 104th Congress
Rule type ---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Number of rules Percent of total Number of rules Percent of total
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Open/Modified-open \2\.............. 46 44 64 60
Modified Closed \3\................. 49 47 26 24
Closed \4\.......................... 9 9 17 16
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Total......................... 104 100 107 100
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
\1\ This table applies only to rules which provide for the original consideration of bills, joint resolutions or
budget resolutions and which provide for an amendment process. It does not apply to special rules which only
waive points of order against appropriations bills which are already privileged and are considered under an
open amendment process under House rules.
\2\ An open rule is one under which any Member may offer a germane amendment under the five-minute rule. A
modified open rule is one under which any Member may offer a germane amendment under the five-minute rule
subject only to an overall time limit on the amendment process and/or a requirement that the amendment be
preprinted in the Congressional Record.
\3\ A modified closed rule is one under which the Rules Committee limits the amendments that may be offered only
to those amendments designated in the special rule or the Rules Committee report to accompany it, or which
preclude amendments to a particular portion of a bill, even though the rest of the bill may be completely open
to amendment.
\4\ A closed rule is one under which no amendments may be offered (other than amendments recommended by the
committee in reporting the bill).
SPECIAL RULES REPORTED BY THE RULES COMMITTEE, 104TH CONGRESS
[As of April 30, 1996]
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Disposition of
H. Res. No. (Date rept.) Rule type Bill No. Subject rule
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
H. Res. 38 (1/18/95)........... O................ H.R. 5........... Unfunded Mandate A: 350-71 (1/19/
Reform. 95).
H. Res. 44 (1/24/95)........... MC............... H. Con. Res. 17.. Social Security....... A: 255-172 (1/25/
H.J. Res. 1...... Balanced Budget Amdt.. 95).
H. Res. 51 (1/31/95)........... O................ H.R. 101......... Land Transfer, Taos A: voice vote (2/
Pueblo Indians. 1/95).
H. Res. 52 (1/31/95)........... O................ H.R. 400......... Land Exchange, Arctic A: voice vote (2/
Nat'l. Park and 1/95).
Preserve.
H. Res. 53 (1/31/95)........... O................ H.R. 440......... Land Conveyance, Butte A: voice vote (2/
County, Calif. 1/95).
H. Res. 55 (2/1/95)............ O................ H.R. 2........... Line Item Veto........ A: voice vote (2/
2/95).
H. Res. 60 (2/6/95)............ O................ H.R. 665......... Victim Restitution.... A: voice vote (2/
7/95).
H. Res. 61 (2/6/95)............ O................ H.R. 666......... Exclusionary Rule A: voice vote (2/
Reform. 7/95).
H. Res. 63 (2/8/95)............ MO............... H.R. 667......... Violent Criminal A: voice vote (2/
Incarceration. 9/95).
H. Res. 69 (2/9/95)............ O................ H.R. 668......... Criminal Alien A: voice vote (2/
Deportation. 10/95).
H. Res. 79 (2/10/95)........... MO............... H.R. 728......... Law Enforcement Block A: voice vote (2/
Grants. 13/95).
H. Res. 83 (2/13/95)........... MO............... H.R. 7........... National Security PQ: 229-100; A:
Revitalization. 227-127 (2/15/
95).
H. Res. 88 (2/16/95)........... MC............... H.R. 831......... Health Insurance PQ: 230-191; A:
Deductibility. 229-188 (2/21/
95).
H. Res. 91 (2/21/95)........... O................ H.R. 830......... Paperwork Reduction A: voice vote (2/
Act. 22/95).
H. Res. 92 (2/21/95)........... MC............... H.R. 889......... Defense Supplemental.. A: 282-144 (2/22/
95).
H. Res. 93 (2/22/95)........... MO............... H.R. 450......... Regulatory Transition A: 252-175 (2/23/
Act. 95).
H. Res. 96 (2/24/95)........... MO............... H.R. 1022........ Risk Assessment....... A: 253-165 (2/27/
95).
H. Res. 100 (2/27/95).......... O................ H.R. 926......... Regulatory Reform and A: voice vote (2/
Relief Act. 28/95).
H. Res. 101 (2/28/95).......... MO............... H.R. 925......... Private Property A: 271-151 (3/2/
Protection Act. 95).
H. Res. 103 (3/3/95)........... MO............... H.R. 1058........ Securities Litigation .................
Reform.
H. Res. 104 (3/3/95)........... MO............... H.R. 988......... Attorney A: voice vote (3/
Accountability Act. 6/95).
H. Res. 105 (3/6/95)........... MO............... ................. ...................... A: 257-155 (3/7/
95).
H. Res. 108 (3/7/95)........... Debate........... H.R. 956......... Product Liability A: voice vote (3/
Reform. 8/95).
H. Res. 109 (3/8/95)........... MC............... ................. ...................... PQ: 234-191 A:
247-181 (3/9/
95).
H. Res. 115 (3/14/95).......... MO............... H.R. 1159........ Making Emergency Supp. A: 242-190 (3/15/
Approps. 95).
H. Res. 116 (3/15/95).......... MC............... H.J. Res. 73..... Term Limits Const. A: voice vote (3/
Amdt. 28/95).
H. Res. 117 (3/16/95).......... Debate........... H.R. 4........... Personal A: voice vote (3/
Responsibility Act of 21/95).
1995.
H. Res. 119 (3/21/95).......... MC............... ................. ...................... A: 217-211 (3/22/
95).
H. Res. 125 (4/3/95)........... O................ H.R. 1271........ Family Privacy A: 423-1 (4/4/
Protection Act. 95).
H. Res. 126 (4/3/95)........... O................ H.R. 660......... Older Persons Housing A: voice vote (4/
Act. 6/95).
[[Page H4322]]
H. Res. 128 (4/4/95)........... MC............... H.R. 1215........ Contract With America A: 228-204 (4/5/
Tax Relief Act of 95).
1995.
H. Res. 130 (4/5/95)........... MC............... H.R. 483......... Medicare Select A: 253-172 (4/6/
Expansion. 95).
H. Res. 136 (5/1/95)........... O................ H.R. 655......... Hydrogen Future Act of A: voice vote (5/
1995. 2/95).
H. Res. 139 (5/3/95)........... O................ H.R. 1361........ Coast Guard Auth. FY A: voice vote (5/
1996. 9/95).
H. Res. 140 (5/9/95)........... O................ H.R. 961......... Clean Water Amendments A: 414-4 (5/10/
95).
H. Res. 144 (5/11/95).......... O................ H.R. 535......... Fish Hatchery-- A: voice vote (5/
Arkansas. 15/95).
H. Res. 145 (5/11/95).......... O................ H.R. 584......... Fish Hatchery--Iowa... A: voice vote (5/
15/95).
H. Res. 146 (5/11/95).......... O................ H.R. 614......... Fish Hatchery-- A: voice vote (5/
Minnesota. 15/95).
H. Res. 149 (5/16/95).......... MC............... H. Con. Res. 67.. Budget Resolution FY PQ: 252-170 A:
1996. 255-168 (5/17/
95).
H. Res. 155 (5/22/95).......... MO............... H.R. 1561........ American Overseas A: 233-176 (5/23/
Interests Act. 95).
H. Res. 164 (6/8/95)........... MC............... H.R. 1530........ Nat. Defense Auth. FY PQ: 225-191 A:
1996. 233-183 (6/13/
95).
H. Res. 167 (6/15/95).......... O................ H.R. 1817........ MilCon Appropriations PQ: 223-180 A:
FY 1996. 245-155 (6/16/
95).
H. Res. 169 (6/19/95).......... MC............... H.R. 1854........ Leg. Branch Approps. PQ: 232-196 A:
FY 1996. 236-191 (6/20/
95).
H. Res. 170 (6/20/95).......... O................ H.R. 1868........ For. Ops. Approps. FY PQ: 221-178 A:
1996. 217-175 (6/22/
95).
H. Res. 171 (6/22/95).......... O................ H.R. 1905........ Energy & Water A: voice vote (7/
Approps. FY 1996. 12/95).
H. Res. 173 (6/27/95).......... C................ H.J. Res. 79..... Flag Constitutional PQ: 258-170 A:
Amendment. 271-152 (6/28/
95).
H. Res. 176 (6/28/95).......... MC............... H.R. 1944........ Emer. Supp. Approps... PQ: 236-194 A:
234-192 (6/29/
95).
H. Res. 185 (7/11/95).......... O................ H.R. 1977........ Interior Approps. FY PQ: 235-193 D:
1996. 192-238 (7/12/
95).
H. Res. 187 (7/12/95).......... O................ H.R. 1977........ Interior Approps. FY PQ: 230-194 A:
1996 #2. 229-195 (7/13/
95).
H. Res. 188 (7/12/95).......... O................ H.R. 1976........ Agriculture Approps. PQ: 242-185 A:
FY 1996. voice vote (7/18/
95).
H. Res. 190 (7/17/95).......... O................ H.R. 2020........ Treasury/Postal PQ: 232-192 A:
Approps. FY 1996. voice vote (7/18/
95).
H. Res. 193 (7/19/95).......... C................ H.J. Res. 96..... Disapproval of MFN to A: voice vote (7/
China. 20/95).
H. Res. 194 (7/19/95).......... O................ H.R. 2002........ Transportation PQ: 217-202 (7/21/
Approps. FY 1996. 95).
H. Res. 197 (7/21/95).......... O................ H.R. 70.......... Exports of Alaskan A: voice vote (7/
Crude Oil. 24/95).
H. Res. 198 (7/21/95).......... O................ H.R. 2076........ Commerce, State A: voice vote (7/
Approps. FY 1996. 25/95).
H. Res. 201 (7/25/95).......... O................ H.R. 2099........ VA/HUD Approps. FY A: 230-189 (7/25/
1996. 95).
H. Res. 204 (7/28/95).......... MC............... S. 21............ Terminating U.S. Arms A: voice vote (8/
Embargo on Bosnia. 1/95).
H. Res. 205 (7/28/95).......... O................ H.R. 2126........ Defense Approps. FY A: 409-1 (7/31/
1996. 95).
H. Res. 207 (8/1/95)........... MC............... H.R. 1555........ Communications Act of A: 255-156 (8/2/
1995. 95).
H. Res. 208 (8/1/95)........... O................ H.R. 2127........ Labor, HHS Approps. FY A: 323-104 (8/2/
1996. 95).
H. Res. 215 (9/7/95)........... O................ H.R. 1594........ Economically Targeted A: voice vote (9/
Investments. 12/95).
H. Res. 216 (9/7/95)........... MO............... H.R. 1655........ Intelligence A: voice vote (9/
Authorization FY 1996. 12/95).
H. Res. 218 (9/12/95).......... O................ H.R. 1162........ Deficit Reduction A: voice vote (9/
Lockbox. 13/95).
H. Res. 219 (9/12/95).......... O................ H.R. 1670........ Federal Acquisition A: 414-0 (9/13/
Reform Act. 95).
H. Res. 222 (9/18/95).......... O................ H.R. 1617........ CAREERS Act........... A: 388-2 (9/19/
95).
H. Res. 224 (9/19/95).......... O................ H.R. 2274........ Natl. Highway System.. PQ: 241-173 A:
375-39-1 (9/20/
95).
H. Res. 225 (9/19/95).......... MC............... H.R. 927......... Cuban Liberty & Dem. A: 304-118 (9/20/
Solidarity. 95).
H. Res. 226 (9/21/95).......... O................ H.R. 743......... Team Act.............. A: 344-66-1 (9/27/
95).
H. Res. 227 (9/21/95).......... O................ H.R. 1170........ 3-Judge Court......... A: voice vote (9/
28/95).
H. Res. 228 (9/21/95).......... O................ H.R. 1601........ Internatl. Space A: voice vote (9/
Station. 27/95).
H. Res. 230 (9/27/95).......... C................ H.J. Res. 108.... Continuing Resolution A: voice vote (9/
FY 1996. 28/95).
H. Res. 234 (9/29/95).......... O................ H.R. 2405........ Omnibus Science Auth.. A: voice vote (10/
11/95).
H. Res. 237 (10/17/95)......... MC............... H.R. 2259........ Disapprove Sentencing A: voice vote (10/
Guidelines. 18/95).
H. Res. 238 (10/18/95)......... MC............... H.R. 2425........ Medicare Preservation PQ: 231-194 A:
Act. 227-192 (10/19/
95).
H. Res. 239 (10/19/95)......... C................ H.R. 2492........ Leg. Branch Approps... PQ: 235-184 A:
voice vote (10/
31/95).
H. Res. 245 (10/25/95)......... MC............... H. Con. Res. 109. Social Security PQ: 228-191 A:
H.R. 2491........ Earnings Reform. 235-185 (10/26/
Seven-Year Balanced 95).
Budget.
H. Res. 251 (10/31/95)......... C................ H.R. 1833........ Partial Birth Abortion A: 237-190 (11/1/
Ban. 95).
H. Res. 252 (10/31/95)......... MO............... H.R. 2546........ D.C. Approps.......... A: 241-181 (11/1/
95).
H. Res. 257 (11/7/95).......... C................ H.J. Res. 115.... Cont. Res. FY 1996.... A: 216-210 (11/8/
95).
H. Res. 258 (11/8/95).......... MC............... H.R. 2586........ Debt Limit............ A: 220-200 (11/10/
95).
H. Res. 259 (11/9/95).......... O................ H.R. 2539........ ICC Termination Act... A: voice vote (11/
14/95).
H. Res. 261 (11/9/95).......... C................ H.J. Res. 115.... Cont. Resolution...... A: 223-182 (11/10/
95).
H. Res. 262 (11/9/95).......... C................ H.R. 2586........ Increase Debt Limit... A: 220-185 (11/10/
95).
H. Res. 269 (11/15/95)......... O................ H.R. 2564........ Lobbying Reform....... A: voice vote (11/
16/95).
H. Res. 270 (11/15/95)......... C................ H.J. Res. 122.... Further Cont. A: 229-176 (11/15/
Resolution. 95).
H. Res. 273 (11/16/95)......... MC............... H.R. 2606........ Prohibition on Funds A: 239-181 (11/17/
for Bosnia. 95).
H. Res. 284 (11/29/95)......... O................ H.R. 1788........ Amtrak Reform......... A: voice vote (11/
30/95).
H. Res. 287 (11/30/95)......... O................ H.R. 1350........ Maritime Security Act. A: voice vote (12/
6/95).
H. Res. 293 (12/7/95).......... C................ H.R. 2621........ Protect Federal Trust PQ: 223-183 A:
Funds. 228-184 (12/14/
95).
H. Res. 303 (12/13/95)......... O................ H.R. 1745........ Utah Public Lands.....
H. Res. 309 (12/18/95)......... C................ H.Con. Res. 122.. Budget Res. W/ PQ: 230-188 A:
President. 229-189 (12/19/
95).
H. Res. 313 (12/19/95)......... O................ H.R. 558......... Texas Low-Level A: voice vote (12/
Radioactive. 20/95).
H. Res. 323 (12/21/95)......... C................ H.R. 2677........ Natl. Parks & Wildlife Tabled (2/28/96).
Refuge.
H. Res. 366 (2/27/96).......... MC............... H.R. 2854........ Farm Bill............. PQ: 228-182 A:
244-168 (2/28/
96).
H. Res. 368 (2/28/96).......... O................ H.R. 994......... Small Business Growth. .................
H. Res. 371 (3/6/96)........... C................ H.R. 3021........ Debt Limit Increase... A: voice vote (3/
7/96).
H. Res. 372 (3/6/96)........... MC............... H.R. 3019........ Cont. Approps. FY 1996 PQ: voice vote A:
235-175 (3/7/
96).
H. Res. 380 (3/12/96).......... MC............... H.R. 2703........ Effective Death A: 251-157 (3/13/
Penalty. 96).
H. Res. 384 (3/14/96).......... MC............... H.R. 2202........ Immigration........... PQ: 233-152 A:
voice vote (3/21/
96).
H. Res. 386 (3/20/96).......... C................ H.J. Res. 165.... Further Cont. Approps. PQ: 234-187 A:
237-183 (3/21/
96).
H. Res. 388 (3/20/96).......... C................ H.R. 125......... Gun Crime Enforcement. A: 244-166 (3/22/
96).
H. Res. 391 (3/27/96).......... C................ H.R. 3136........ Contract w/America PQ: 232-180 A:
Advancement. 232-177, (3/28/
96).
H. Res. 392 (3/27/96).......... MC............... H.R. 3103........ Health Coverage PQ: 229-186 A:
Affordability. Voice Vote (3/29/
96).
H. Res. 395 (3/29/96).......... MC............... H.J. Res. 159.... Tax Limitation Const. PQ: 232-168 A:
Amdmt.. 234-162 (4/15/
96).
H. Res. 396 (3/29/96).......... O................ H.R. 842......... Truth in Budgeting Act A: voice vote (4/
17/96).
H. Res. 409 (4/23/96).......... O................ H.R. 2715........ Paperwork Elimination A: voice vote (4/
Act. 24/96).
H. Res. 410 (4/23/96).......... O................ H.R. 1675........ Natl. Wildlife Refuge. A: voice vote (4/
24/96).
H. Res. 411 (4/23/96).......... O................ H.J. Res. 175.... Further Cont. Approps. A: voice vote (4/
FY 1996. 24/96).
H. Res. 418 (4/30/96).......... O................ H.R. 2641........ U.S. Marshals Service. .................
H. Res. 419 (4/30/96).......... O................ H.R. 2149........ Ocean Shipping Reform. .................
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Codes: O-open rule; MO-modified open rule; MC-modified closed rule; C-closed rule; A-adoption vote; D-defeated;
PQ-previous question vote. Source: Notices of Action Taken, Committee on Rules, 104th Congress.
Mr. CONYERS. Mr. Speaker, I rise to oppose the previous question so
that we can finally get a vote on the minimum wage--an issue on which
Speaker Gingrich will not let the House speak its will. This despite
repeated promises that the new GOP would let the House work the will of
the people, and not bottle up legislation simply because they didn't
like it.
All we are asking for is a vote on the minimum wage.
The facts are staggering when we look closely at the true value of
our $4.25 per hour minimum wage: the current minimum wage is at its
lowest value in 40 years and is 30 percent below its average level of
the 1970's. Twelve million Americans earn less than $5.15 per hour, and
73 percent of minimum wage earners are adults and most are women. And
it is estimated that one in five minimum wage earners live below the
poverty line. It is clear that our minimum wage is too much minimum and
not enough wage.
The last time the minimum wage was increased was 1991--and its value
has eroded 50 cents since then. That is why the President has proposed,
and I support, a 90 cent increase over 2 years, bringing the wage to
$5.15 per hour.
During the two Government shutdowns, Members of Congress earned more
than a minimum wage earner will make in an entire year. This Congress
has spent the vast majority of its time trying to take away Medicare
and other benefits from working Americans, while trying to find more
tax breaks for the rich. Now we can't even have a vote on this most
fundamental matter of basic decency and equity.
This is an outrage to all Americans, and most importantly the 12
million Americans who live on subminimum wages now.
I urge Members to defeat the previous question so that we can finally
get a vote this issue which has been muzzled. And don't mistake it--
your vote to defeat the previous question will be viewed as your vote
on the minimum wage issue. Americans who work full time should be able
to earn a livable wage. A full-time worker should not be forced to live
in poverty. Americans who work hard and play by the rules deserve the
opportunity to create
[[Page H4323]]
a better future for their children, and an increase to the minimum wage
will do just that. I urge all of my colleagues to vote ``aye'' on the
previous question so that we can finally give 12 million workers a
raise this year.
Ms. PRYCE. Mr. Speaker, I yield back the balance of my time, and I
move the previous question on the resolution.
The previous question was ordered.
The SPEAKER pro tempore (Mr. Gutknecht). 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. HALL. 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.
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 vote was taken by electronic device, and there were--yeas 219,
nays 203, not voting 11, as follows:
[Roll No. 140]
YEAS--219
Allard
Archer
Armey
Bachus
Baker (CA)
Baker (LA)
Ballenger
Barr
Barrett (NE)
Bartlett
Barton
Bass
Bateman
Bereuter
Bilbray
Bilirakis
Bliley
Boehner
Bonilla
Bono
Brewster
Brownback
Bryant (TN)
Bunn
Bunning
Burr
Burton
Buyer
Callahan
Calvert
Camp
Campbell
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
Dunn
Ehlers
Ehrlich
Emerson
Ensign
Everett
Ewing
Fawell
Fields (TX)
Foley
Fowler
Fox
Franks (CT)
Franks (NJ)
Frelinghuysen
Funderburk
Gallegly
Ganske
Gekas
Gilchrest
Gillmor
Goodlatte
Goodling
Graham
Greene (UT)
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
Lewis (CA)
Lewis (KY)
Lightfoot
Linder
Livingston
LoBiondo
Longley
Lucas
Manzullo
Martini
McCollum
McCrery
McDade
McInnis
McIntosh
McKeon
Metcalf
Meyers
Mica
Miller (FL)
Moorhead
Morella
Myrick
Nethercutt
Neumann
Ney
Norwood
Nussle
Oxley
Packard
Parker
Paxon
Petri
Pombo
Porter
Portman
Pryce
Quillen
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
Tauzin
Taylor (NC)
Thomas
Thornberry
Tiahrt
Upton
Vucanovich
Walker
Wamp
Watts (OK)
Weldon (FL)
Weldon (PA)
Weller
White
Whitfield
Wicker
Wolf
Young (AK)
Young (FL)
Zeliff
Zimmer
NAYS--203
Abercrombie
Ackerman
Andrews
Baesler
Baldacci
Barcia
Barrett (WI)
Becerra
Beilenson
Bentsen
Bevill
Bishop
Blute
Boehlert
Bonior
Borski
Boucher
Browder
Brown (CA)
Brown (FL)
Brown (OH)
Cardin
Chapman
Clayton
Clement
Clyburn
Coleman
Collins (IL)
Collins (MI)
Condit
Conyers
Costello
Coyne
Cramer
Cummings
Danner
de la Garza
DeFazio
DeLauro
Dellums
Deutsch
Dicks
Dingell
Dixon
Doggett
Dooley
Doyle
Duncan
Durbin
Edwards
Engel
English
Eshoo
Evans
Farr
Fattah
Fazio
Fields (LA)
Filner
Flake
Foglietta
Forbes
Ford
Frank (MA)
Frisa
Frost
Furse
Gejdenson
Gephardt
Geren
Gibbons
Gilman
Gonzalez
Gordon
Green (TX)
Gutierrez
Hall (OH)
Hall (TX)
Hamilton
Harman
Hastings (FL)
Hefner
Hilliard
Hinchey
Holden
Hoyer
Jackson (IL)
Jackson-Lee (TX)
Jacobs
Jefferson
Johnson (SD)
Johnson, E. B.
Johnston
Kanjorski
Kennedy (MA)
Kennedy (RI)
Kennelly
Kildee
Kleczka
Klink
LaFalce
Lantos
Leach
Levin
Lincoln
Lipinski
Lofgren
Lowey
Luther
Maloney
Manton
Markey
Martinez
Mascara
McCarthy
McDermott
McHale
McHugh
McKinney
McNulty
Meehan
Meek
Menendez
Millender-McDonald
Miller (CA)
Minge
Mink
Moakley
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
Quinn
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
Torkildsen
Torres
Torricelli
Towns
Traficant
Velazquez
Vento
Visclosky
Volkmer
Walsh
Ward
Waters
Watt (NC)
Waxman
Williams
Wilson
Wise
Woolsey
Wynn
Yates
NOT VOTING--11
Berman
Bryant (TX)
Clay
Flanagan
Goss
Hayes
Kaptur
Lewis (GA)
Matsui
Molinari
Myers
{time} 1327
The Clerk announced the following pair:
On this vote:
Mr. Goss for, with Ms. Kaptur against.
Mr. ORTON changed his vote from ``yea'' to ``nay.''
{time} 1330
So the previous question was ordered.
The result of the vote was announced as above recorded.
The SPEAKER pro tempore (Mr. Gutknecht). The question is on the
resolution.
The resolution was agreed to.
A motion to reconsider was laid on the table.
The SPEAKER pro tempore. Pursuant to House Resolution 418 and rule
XXIII, the Chair declares the House in the Committee of the Whole House
on the State of the Union for the consideration of the bill, H.R. 2641.
{time} 1330
In the committee of the whole
Accordingly the House resolved itself into the Committee of the Whole
House on the State of the Union for the consideration of the bill (H.R.
2641) to amend title 28, United States Code, to provide for appointment
of United States marshals by the Director of the United States Marshals
Service, with Mr. Wicker in the chair.
The Clerk read the title of the bill.
The CHAIRMAN. Pursuant to the rule, the bill is considered as having
been read the first time.
Under the rule, the gentleman from Florida [Mr. McCollum] and the
gentleman from Michigan [Mr. Conyers] each will be recognized for 30
minutes.
The Chair recognizes the gentleman from Florida [Mr. McCollum].
Mr. McCOLLUM. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself such time as I may
consume.
I want to thank all of my colleagues for allowing this discussion
today. This is a very important piece of legislation, and I do not
believe very controversial, but very important.
Mr. Chairman, H.R. 2641, the United States Marshals Service
Improvements Act of 1995, changes the selection process of the Nation's
94 U.S. Marshals from that of appointment by the President with the
advice and consent of the Senate, to appointment by the Attorney
General. U.S. Marshals would be selected on a competitive basis, among
career managers within the Marshals Service, rather than being
nominated by the administration and approved or rejected by the Senate.
Incumbent U.S. marshals selected before enactment of this bill would
perform the duties of their office until their terms expire and
successors are appointed. Marshals selected between enactment of the
bill and the year 2000 would be appointed by the President, with the
advice and consent of the Senate, and serve for 4 years. H.R. 2641 was
reported favorably out of the Judiciary
[[Page H4324]]
Committee by voice vote, without amendment.
I might add that the bill does not change the provisions with respect
to the Presidential appointment of the director of the U.S. Marshals
Service who will continue just as the law presently reads.
I introduced this bill on behalf of the Federal Law Enforcement
Officers Association which strongly desires to enhance the
professionalism of the U.S. Marshals Service. The responsibilities of a
U.S. marshal are varied and severely challenging. These duties range
from maintaining the security of the Federal courts to tracking down
fugitives from justice. Moreover, as complex criminal prosecutions
continue to increase, the need to move essential witnesses around the
country grows with it. This is also a duty of the Marshals Service.
However, the current selection process does not take these
responsibilities into consideration.
The current selection of U.S. marshals is as varied as the Senators
who nominate them. Currently, there is no criteria for selection of a
U.S. marshal. There is no age, physical fitness, educational,
managerial, or law enforcement requirement or experience needed to
become a U.S. marshal. In the past, U.S. marshal positions have been
filled by undertakers, coroners, pig farmers, and even a host of a
childrens' daytime television program, just to name a few. The only
training a newly appointed marshal receives from the Marshals Service
is a 40-hour orientation session. Unlike all other Marshals Service
employees, the presidentially appointed marshal is not subject to
disciplinary actions, cannot be reassigned, and can only be removed by
the President or upon the appointment of a successor. This lack of
accountability has resulted in a number of problems, including
budgetary irresponsibility among individual marshals, and has created a
double standard that has a negative impact on morale.
It is important to note that the current appointment process for U.S.
marshals is unique among Federal law enforcement agencies. Both the FBI
and the DEA select heads of their field offices based upon merit.
Special agents in charge are not politically appointed. Instead, they
are the best agents who have worked their way to the top. The Marshals
Service should have nothing less.
It is my view that H.R. 2641 would be a commonsense approach to
professionalizing the U.S. Marshals Service. The Justice Department
supports this legislation, and it is similar to a recommendation of
Vice President Gore's National Performance Review. This bill is a small
but important step in this Congress' ongoing effort to improve the
administration of Federal law enforcement, and I certainly urge my
colleagues to support it.
And I might add that nothing of the criticism I have given today with
respect to the problems that the U.S. Marshals Service has had from
time to time should reflect adversely on the many U.S. marshals who
perform their duties admirably and are doing so today, although the
qualifications that they have been appointed under are not as strict as
the qualifications, in the judgment of the committee, should be. And I
believe that today's legislation will provide those kinds of
opportunities for the Attorney General to set, by her regulation,
standards for the appointment of U.S. marshals and make sure that
professional law enforcement officers head our field offices in the
future rather than having the opportunity for politics to be played
with these very important law enforcement officers.
Mr. Chairman, I reserve the balance of my time.
Mr. CONYERS. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself as much time as I may
consume.
Mr. Chairman, this is a bill that is not opposed in the House, but
this is a bill that is opposed in the Senate. Oh yes, there is another
body that has to say something about how a bill becomes law, and in the
Senate this is not unanimously agreed to. Sorry to announce that, my
colleagues. That just happens to be the case.
Mr. BISHOP. Mr. Chairman, will the gentleman yield?
Mr. CONYERS. I yield to the gentleman from Georgia.
Mr. BISHOP. Mr. Chairman, I just want to point out to the gentleman
that it is not unanimous in this body either.
Mr. CONYERS. Mr. Chairman, this is the first I heard of that, because
everybody told me this was a done deal. It was so put together that we
did not even need to close the rule up in the Committee on Rules. They
gave us an open rule, as many amendments as we want on something that
is going through unanimously, I guess. But, no, I understand that that
may not be the case, and so I just want to remind everybody that this
generous Committee on Rules that allowed us an open rule, as many
amendments as we want, is the same Committee on Rules in the 104th
Congress that on about 45 other occasions, when we begged them for an
open rule on things that were slightly more important than this, there
was no way we could get it because the Democrats on the committee were
outvoted every single time. But now on this, how many amendments do we
have? Not a single one. But it is an open rule, showing, I guess, that
the chairman and the Republican dominated Committee on Rules is doing
us a real big favor on May 1, 1996.
Mr. Chairman, I reserve the balance of my time.
Mr. McCOLLUM. Mr. Chairman, I yield such time as he may consume to
the gentleman from Georgia [Mr. Collins] for purposes of a colloquy.
Mr. COLLINS of Georgia. Mr. Chairman, I thank the gentleman for
yielding this time to me, and my purpose for the colloquy is to be
assured that there is nothing in this legislation that would prohibit
any law enforcement officer who resides in the jurisdiction of the
Marshals Service where the appointment will be made from not being
considered for the employment. What I understand we are doing here is
we are changing the appointment process from that of a nomination by
Senator and a confirmation by the Senator as recommendations of the
President.
Mr. Chairman, I yield to the gentleman from Florida [Mr. McCollum].
Mr. McCOLLUM. Mr. Chairman, that is correct, I say to the gentleman.
While it would be my opinion that the results of this law and the
regulations the Attorney General promulgates, who will now have the
power of the appointment instead of the President, will be that many of
the marshals will be career service promotions. There is nothing that
we are doing to put into the law now anything that will keep the
Attorney General from being able to appoint a sheriff or another local
law enforcement person if she or he wanted to do that, and there is no
change in the underlying law either. The same basic law is true for the
DEA or the FBI today.
Mr. COLLINS of Georgia. Mr. Chairman, I further inquire, too, about
the qualifications for the person being considered for the nomination.
Does the gentleman have any idea or suggestion or comments on the age
or any type of retirement age or entry level age?
Mr. McCOLLUM. The bill is silent as to age, and the law that exists
today is silent as to age or other qualifications. What I would assume
is that the Attorney General will promulgate some guidelines with
respect to the qualifications under her regulatory power which the
gentleman and I would have a chance to comment on. But I do not see
anything in the law that would present any impediment to the
qualification of anyone based on the law.
It is just that I am expecting, with the Attorney General having this
power instead of the President and having to go through the Senate
where they play a lot of politics, that we will certainly have law
enforcement people, professional law enforcement people, running these
offices in the future. But with respect to any other qualifications, I
do not have any preconceived notions.
Mr. COLLINS of Georgia. That also would include any formal law
enforcement official.
Mr. McCOLLUM. That is correct. That is correct. That would be my
assumption. But again it will be up to the Attorney General's
discretion to the extent that the normal rules apply, the promulgation
of regulations for qualifications.
Mr. COLLINS of Georgia. I know the intent of the gentleman from
Florida is to take politics out of the appointment as much as possible,
but I am concerned, too, that we may form some internal politics within
the agency itself
[[Page H4325]]
if we are not careful. That is where I want to make sure that no one is
culled out from being considered as a nominee or as an appointee for
the particular office, services, U.S. marshal.
We have in the central district of Georgia in the past, we have
actually had a deputy marshal appointed as U.S. marshal. I know and I
understand what the gentleman is trying to do. But any good law
enforcement officer should be considered for this appointment, and I
want to assure that that will be still available.
Mr. McCOLLUM. Mr. Chairman, in general I concur with the gentleman's
perspective, but the law is silent in this regard. And given the
qualifications and the decisions or the discretion is going to rest
with the Attorney General, as it does with all other Federal law
enforcement local field office appointments, which is what this will
become.
{time} 1345
Mr. Chairman, I reserve the balance of my time.
Mr. CONYERS. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself such time as I may consume.
Mr. Chairman, this is a very important bill. It is a big deal. We are
going to strip the President of the ability to appoint U.S. marshals.
What are we going to do with it? We are going to give it to the
Attorney General who is appointed, I think, by the President of the
United States. So this is very heavy, Mr. Chairman. We ought to think
carefully about this. The Attorney General is better positioned to know
who should be a U.S. marshal than the President of the United States,
for whom he or she works. Very heavy. Follow carefully. This is not a
light matter. Do not throw this one away. U.S. marshals must be
appointed by the Attorney General, not the President.
Mr. Chairman, I yield such time as he may consume to the gentleman
from New York [Mr. Schumer], ranking member of the Subcommittee on
Crime of the Committee on the Judiciary.
Mr. SCHUMER. Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentleman for yielding time to
me.
Mr. Chairman, I rise in support of the bill. I also want Members to
know why this simple bill is on the floor today and what it says about
the failure of the leadership on the other side. I am referring, of
course, not to the ranking member of the Subcommittee on Crime, or the
Judiciary, or the Committee on the Judiciary, but by others who have
constantly messed into the anticrime agenda.
Mr. Chairman, let there be no misunderstanding; in my view, this is a
good bill and it should be enacted into law. It went through
subcommittee and full committee without opposition. It has the support
of all the major law enforcement organizations. It has the support of
the Justice Department. In fact, Mr. Chairman, this bill is a perfect
example of a bill that should have been brought to the floor on the
Suspension Calendar and disposed of in 5 minutes.
So why is this bill on the floor today under an open rule? Why is the
Republican leadership pretending that there is really something of
substance for us to debate here? The answer, Mr. Chairman, is simple:
The bill is on the floor today simply because the other side has
nothing else to bring before the House, and it wants to boost its
batting average for open rules.
The bill is here today because the other side's anticrime agenda is
basically shipwrecked. America is crying out for help in its fight
against the proliferation of drugs and gangs and guns in the hands of
children. Yet, this bill is the best thing that Speaker Gingrich can
come up with for the House to do today.
Just look at a few of the real problems, either ignored or actually
made worse during this Congress: Every day, hundreds of children are
being dragged into the spider's web of drug abuse. What has the
Republican leadership done about that problem? It has gutted and
defunded the juvenile prevention programs we passed in the last
Congress and erected nothing, nothing in their place.
Every day scores of Americans are killed or injured by gun violence.
What has the leadership done about that problem? It has tried to repeal
the assault weapons ban we passed in the last Congress, a ban that more
than two-thirds of the American people support.
Every day hundreds of thousands of law enforcement officers put their
lives on the line in the fight against drugs and guns and gangs and
terrorists. Just last week, the ATF uncovered a militia plot in the
Speaker's own district, yet these law enforcement officers have been
vilified by radical forces of the extreme right.
And what has the Republican leadership done about that problem?
Instead of focusing its attention on the radical forces of hatred and
extremism, it has encouraged those forces by engaging in a concerted
program to bash law enforcement: to wit, 10 long days of hearings to
pick through the ashes of Waco, and come up with not a single
substantial new finding. By contrast, we only held 1 short day of
hearings on the right-wing militias.
The Republican leadership bowed to its right wing and included in the
terrorism bill an NRA-inspired commission, the whole purpose of which
was to criticize law enforcement. The Republican leadership has blocked
every attempt to amend the armor-piercing bullet laws so we can protect
every cop in America from cop-killer bullets. We have to ask the same
question thousands of cops throughout America are asking: Whose side
are those guys on?
Mr. Chairman, I support this bill and I urge my colleagues to vote
for it, but it is a sad day in America, Mr. Chairman, because while the
American people call out for real help in fighting crime, both
punishment and prevention, the Republican leadership plays legislative
games with blue smoke and mirrors.
Mr. McCOLLUM. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself such time as I may
consume.
Mr. Chairman, I must say that I am disappointed in my colleagues on
the other side. While they are supporting this legislation, they are
mocking it and then using it for political speeches about what is and
is not a Republican-Democrat position on the crime issue.
I, first of all, think this bill merits being out here solely today
as it is, because it is a very significant change in law. It is not
just that we are moving the appointment powers from the President to
the Attorney General. It is a little more complicated than that. The
appointment powers of the President require confirmation by the Senate,
and as a matter of course when the Senators have that, just as with
Federal judges, the appointments truly are the choices of the Senators,
as much or more than they are of the President. They are never, or
rarely at least, career professionals.
What we are doing today by giving the Attorney General the same power
over the U.S. marshals appointments as she has today over the FBI and
DEA field office heads and other law enforcement agency heads is making
the U.S Marshals Service truly professional and taking a lot, if not
all, of the politics out of it, the only exception being the director
of the U.S. Marshals Service, which, like the director of the FBI, will
remain a presidential appointment.
Mr. Chairman, this bill is not a minor bill. It is a very significant
change in law. It should have been done a long time ago. If we want to
play partisan politics, which was not my intent, I do not know why the
Democratic majority for 40 years before this party took over this past
January a year ago did not do this. It should have been done a long
time ago.
Mr. Chairman, I would also respond to my colleagues about the work of
this side of the aisle in the crime area. It seems to me that it would
be obvious to any member of the Subcommittee on Crime, certainly the
Committee on the Judiciary and this full body, that we have had 6 or 7
major crime bills that have become enacted into law and signed by the
President in the past few weeks.
Granted, they were part of the terrorism bill and part of the
appropriation bill, but six or seven of the Contract With America crime
bills are now law. Some of them many of us have been fighting to get
accomplished for years, the most significant of which, and which I will
grant some of my colleagues over there do not agree with, but the most
significant one is the reform of the so-called habeas corpus laws,
which have allowed death row inmates to delay the carrying out of their
sentences for years by procedural devices. They are not going to be
able
[[Page H4326]]
to do that anymore; a very significant provision that President
Clinton, thank goodness, signed into law, that Democrat Congresses have
refused to pass over the years and send to a Republican President to
sign.
In addition to that, Mr. Chairman, we have prison litigation reforms
that have eliminated the caps that have been strangling State prison
wardens from being able to keep prisoners who should be in prison
there. We have had Federal judges saying things are overcrowded that
would not be overcrowded in Federal prison. Now we have removed those
caps and we have set up procedures that means that we are not going to
be able to strangle the wardens and we are going to keep a lot of these
prisoners behind bars.
In addition to that, we have a provision that has gone into law that
will change the litigation requirements for prisoner litigation. We are
not going to see a lot of litigation over peanut butter sandwiches like
we have seen before, and other frivolous matters.
We have also enacted into law the Republican provisions on truth-in-
sentencing to make it really meaningful, as opposed to what the last
Congress did, in encouraging the States to actually incarcerate violent
repeat felons for at least 85 percent of their sentences. We are going
to give them additional moneys to build the prison business with which
to do that.
Last but not least, my friend complained about the drug program.
Somehow we cut out some prevention programs. All we did, and I think
this is very significant, Mr. Chairman, is that we enacted what we
fought for for several years and could not get, and that is a block
grant program with all that prevention money, for about $500 million
for this year alone, that will now be a question of the local
communities deciding how best to spend that, whether it is fighting
drugs or fighting crime in any other way. If there is a high crime
area, the cities and the county governments are going to get this money
to spend as they see fit, because what is good for Spokane, WA, in my
judgment, is not necessarily good for Charleston, SC; and Lord knows,
Congress and Washington certainly do not know best when it comes to
crime prevention programs and fighting crime.
Mr. Chairman, not only that, but next week on the floor we are going
to have a bill out here on crimes against children and the elderly,
mandatory notification of communities regarding sex offenders, an
antistalking bill, a bill regarding retaliation against witnesses, and
the list goes on.
This subcommittee has already, the Subcommittee on Crime and this
Congress, produced more legislation and brought it to the floor, and
will have, by the end of this month coming up, certainly than any other
subcommittee of this Congress. I am proud of what we are doing. There
is even more to come.
Mr. Chairman, I am sorry we got off into a partisan discussion but,
quite frankly, my judgment is the President is a little bit late on a
lot of this stuff, like with his drug program down here. I think what
he announced earlier this week sounds terrific. It sounds just like
Ronald Reagan and George Bush with a new drug policy. It sounds great,
but where was President Clinton for the last 3\1/2\ years? Where was he
when he was cutting back on the drug czar's office in order to satisfy
his commitment to reduce White House personnel, when he cut them by 60
percent or 80 percent earlier in his administration? For 3\1/2\ years
we languished without a good drug policy. We saw the rate of usage of
marijuana and cocaine among high school students double.
I am glad he is coming around to some of this now and maybe signing
things into law. Again, I did not think this bill should be the forum
for this kind of political discussion, but my colleague saw fit to
raise it as a political issue about the general subject of crime, and I
certainly am not going to sit back and not comment on it.
The bill itself, though, Mr. Chairman needs to be passed. It is an
important bill. It does take the U.S. Marshals Service out of politics.
Mr. Chairman, I reserve the balance of my time.
Mr. CONYERS. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself such time as I may consume.
Mr. Chairman, we are here today because this is an important bill.
This bill is important because it takes politics out of U.S. marshals
appointments. It takes politics out of the appointments by giving the
appointments from the President to the Attorney General, so there are
no more politics in the U.S. Marshals Service.
That is why a number of Members of both sides of the aisle in the
other body are not very enthusiastic about this measure. It may not be
going anywhere, as logical, inevitable, as perfect, as improving as
this will be to the Department of Justice. Mr. Chairman, I do not know,
if I had my druthers, I like Presidents to make appointments.
Mr. Chairman, by the way, why do we not have the Attorney General
appoint the U.S. district attorneys, while we are at it, or whomever
the Attorney General might be? I do not hear anybody talking about
that. Would that not take the politics out of DOJ? Yes, no, maybe?
Well, probably not, and probably not in this bill, either. Mr.
Chairman, I do not see anything to crow about in this bill.
The one thing I do agree with my friend, the gentleman from Florida
[Mr. McCollum], about is that his subcommittee has taken out the
ability of prisoners to write and complain about peanut butter
sandwiches. The way he did that is have the judges dismiss those as
frivolous suits, which they have been doing long before he became the
chairman of the Subcommittee on Crime.
Mr. Chairman, I yield back the balance of my time.
Mr. McCOLLUM. Mr. Chairman, I yield 3 minutes to the gentleman from
Colorado [Mr. McInnis].
(Mr. McINNIS asked and was given permission to revise and extend his
remarks.)
Mr. McINNIS. Mr. Chairman, I thank the gentleman for yielding time to
me.
Mr. Chairman, I was over in my office watching this debate. Let me,
first of all, address the issue of the rules. I saw the gentleman from
New York, who still sits on the floor, and I am amazed.
The gentleman from New York complains when the Committee on Rules
issues a closed rule. I understand his complaints. The gentleman from
New York complains when the Committee on Rules issues a rule based on a
modified closed rule. I understand, somewhat, the legitimacy of that
type of complaint.
But now the only thing remaining, an open rule, and I am sitting in
my office and the gentleman from New York is objecting to a rule that
is an open rule. Mr. Chairman, I want to talk about that for a minute,
from the gentleman from New York. What is going to make him happy?
Complain, complain, complain. We issue an open rule.
Mr. Chairman, for those who do not clearly understand what an open
rule means, it means we have completely opened debate. How can Members
complain against that? The Committee on Rules, I think, acting in
absolute good faith, has put this bill on the floor with an open rule
so we can have the type of debate we are having today.
Mr. Chairman, let me move from the rule to the other issue at hand.
Now let us talk about the bill.
{time} 1400
Mr. Chairman, I used to be a cop. I know something about a good cop
and a bad cop, and I can tell you the U.S. Marshals Service needs to be
professionalized.
I am not embarrassed to stand up here in front of you and tell you
that the Marshals Service worked a disgrace upon this country at Ruby
Ridge. They were censured by the U.S. Senate. I have got the
documentation right here. I am going to put it into the Record. They
gave a black eye to all of us ex-cops and to all current cops.
That is not professionally run over there. Not only did they goof up
and cost some people some lives at Ruby Ridge, then the director of the
U.S. Marshals Service went out and gave the highest award possible
under the U.S. Marshals Service to the agents involved at Ruby Ridge.
Should we crow about that? Absolutely not. Should we be embarrassed
by it? Absolutely yes. Should we do something to reform the U.S.
Marshals Service? The answer is clearly yes.
I am proud to say that Bill McCollum from the State of Florida has
taken it upon himself to clean this agency up. This is a good bill. Why
are we even debating? Why are you fighting this bill? This is a good
bill. It does
[[Page H4327]]
clean up the U.S. Marshals Service, and it cleans it up under an open
rule.
I would urge all Members to support this bill, I would urge all
Members to take a very critical eye and to look very carefully at what
the U.S. Marshals Service has done and how we can professionalize it,
because if we professionalize that agency, it is a plus for all of us.
Mr. Chairman, I include the following for the Record:
Congress of the United States,
House of Representatives,
Washington, DC, March 13, 1996.
Eduardo Gonzalez,
Director, U.S. Marshals, Arlington, VA.
Director: The granting of the U.S. Marshal's ``Service
Award for Valor'' to the Marshals involved in the Ruby Ridge
incident is wrong and you know its wrong.
It is clear from the trial, Senate hearings, and testimony
from those involved that standards of ``good judgment'',
``unusual courage'' and ``competence in hostile
circumstances'' were not met, even at a minimal level. It is
also interesting that the Marshals ``Information Sheet
Randall Weaver Incident'' conveniently excludes key facts
surrounding the incident such as the censure of your agents'
conduct.
Granting this prestigious award to the Marshals and calling
them heroes, greatly discounts the history of the award and
for that reason alone, I regret your decision and poor
judgment.
Sincerely,
Scott McInnis,
Member of Congress.
____
They Call This Valor
(By James Bovard)
On March 1, the U.S. Marshals Service gave its highest
award for valor to five U.S. marshals involved in the 1992
Ruby Ridge, Idaho, shoot-out, including the marshal who
fatally shot a 14-year-old boy in the back and another
marshal who provoked a firefight by killing the boy's dog.
The award announcement sent shock waves across Capitol Hill.
The marshals received the award, according to U.S. Marshals
Service Director Eduardo Gonzalez, for ``their exceptional
courage, their sound judgment in the face of attack, and
their high degree of professional competence during the
incident.'' Mr. Gonzalez labeled the men ``heroes.'' This
makes a mockery of the many brave marshals who serve their
fellow citizens.
Randy Weaver, a white separatist who had attended a few
Aryan Nation meetings, was charged in 1991 with selling
illegal sawed-off shotguns to a federal informant. (A jury
later concluded that Mr. Weaver had been entrapped.) The U.S.
Marshals Service was assigned the job of bringing Mr. Weaver
in. The marshals spent the next year and a half spying on Mr.
Weaver, sneaking around his land dozens of times and erecting
spy cameras to record all of his family's movements.
The marshals greatly exaggerated the threat from Mr. Weaver
due in part to false information they had received from ATF
agent Herb Byerly, who according to one U.S, marshal, told
them that ``Weaver is a suspect in several eastern Washington
and western Montana bank robberies. An alleged accomplice in
the robberies was arrested somewhere in Iowa and implicated a
person believed to be Weaver during a confession. The
accomplice has since escaped from custody with the assumption
that he could be on the Weaver property.' Agent Byerly told a
Senate subcommittee that the incorrect information was due to
a ``typographical error.''
On Aug. 21, 1992, six U.S. marshals scurried onto the
Weaver property, outfitted in full ninja-type camouflage and
ski masks and carrying submachine guns and other high-powered
weapons. The marshals had no visible badges or insignia
identifying them as federal agents. After agents threw rocks
near the Weaver cabin, Mr. Weaver's 14-year-old son, Sammy,
and Kevin Harris, a 25-year-old friend living in the cabin,
ran to see what the Weavers' dogs were barking at.
The marshals took off running through the woods, followed
by one dog. The marshals later told the FBI that they had
been ambushed. But according to a Justice Department
confidential report, the marshals chose to stop running and
take a stand behind stumps and trees. The marshals had the
advantage of surprise, camouflage and vastly more firepower
than the boy and Kevin Harris possessed.
The firefight began when Marshal Arthur Roderick shot and
killed the family dog, as a Senate subcommittee investigation
concluded last December. Marshals Roderick and Cooper claimed
that the first shot of the encounter had been fired by Kevin
Harris and had killed Marshal Bill Degan. But Capt. Dave Neal
of the Idaho State Police team that rescued the marshals 12
hours later stated that Marshal Roderick indicated that he
had fired the first shot to kill the dog.
After his dog had been killed, Sammy fired his gun in the
direction the shots had come from. Sammy was running back to
the cabin when according to the government's ballistics
expert at Mr. Weaver's 1993 trial, a shot from Marshal Larry
Cooper hit him in the back and killed him. Kevin Harris
stated that he responded to Sammy's shooting by firing one
shot into the woods to try to protect Sammy and defend
himself. Mr. Harris's shot apparently killed Marshal Degan,
an Idaho jury found that Mr. Harris acted in self-defense.
Though Marshals Cooper and Roderick testified that Marshal
Degan was killed by the first shot, evidence later proved
that he had fired seven shots.
Marshals Roderick and Cooper stayed huddled alongside
Marshals Degan's body for the next 12 hours, afraid that they
might be shot if they tried to carry him off the mountain--
even though the Weavers had long since retrieved their son's
corpse and gone back to the ramshackle cabin. Other marshals
panicked and wrongfully indicated that the Weavers had U.S.
marshals ``pinned down'' for hours under heavy gunfire. A
subsequent FBI on-site investigation found evidence that the
marshals fired far more shots at Sammy Weaver and Mr. Harris
than Sammy and Mr. Harris fired at them.
FBI Hostage Rescue Team snipers were called in. The
subcommittee report noted, ``FBI agents who were briefed in
Washington and in Idaho during the early stages of the crisis
at Rudy Ridge received a great deal of inaccurate or
exaggerated information concerning . . . the firefight.''
The marshals' gross mischaracterization helped pave the
way to the FBI killing of Vicki Weaver, Sammy's mother.
Marshals Roderick and Cooper testified last Sept. 15 before
Senate Judiciary subcommittee hearings chaired by Sen. Arlen
Specter (R., Pa.) on the Ruby Ridge case. They stunned the
committee by announcing that Randy Weaver had shot his own
son. Though Sammy was shot as he was running in the direction
of his father, and though Mr. Weaver was far away from the
scene of his son's death, and was in front of him and at a
higher elevation, and though his son was shot in the back by
a bullet with an upward trajectory, Marshal Cooper insisted
the father still somehow shot the son.
That could have happened only if Randy Weaver had been
using ``Roger Rabbit'' cartoon bullets--bullets that could
twist around tress, take U-turns, and defy all laws of
physics. The jury foreman at the federal trial in 1993
characterized the new Cooper-Roderick theory with an
expletive and told the Washington Post last September that
``the government's story has changed every time you turn
around.''
The Senate subcommittee report concluded, ``The
Subcommittee . . . has seen no evidence which would support
the Marshals' claim . . . ``Sen. Specter said last week that
he was ``surprised to see a commendation for U.S. marshals
whose conduct was under censure from the Judiciary
subcommittee.''
The marshals' dubious conduct is further indicated by the
Marshals Service's refusal to undertake routine internal
investigations after the fatal shootings. The Senate
subcommittee noted, ``We were disappointed to learn that,
based on his desire to avoid creating discoverable documents
that might be used by the defense in the Weaver/Harris trial
. . . former Director Henry Hudson decided to conduct no
formal internal review of USMS activities connected with the
Weaver case and the Rudy Ridge incident.''
Can anyone imagine Wyatt Earp, when he served as a U.S.
marshal in the 1880s, receiving a valor award for shooting a
14-year old boy in the back? Does the Marshals Service
believe that Americans are obliged to give the benefit of the
doubt to people in ninja outfits who jump out of the woods
and begin firing submachine guns at them? Federal law
enforcement agencies have yet to learn that they cannot
brazenly shoot innocent Americans and then pretend that the
agents involved should be treated like national heroes.
Mr. McCOLLUM. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself such time as I may
consume.
Mr. Chairman, I do not intend to take much time. The bill's debate is
essentially completed. But I do want to point out again to my
colleagues that there are a lot of things that have been going on that
have been legislation dealing with crime, that have come out here this
year, and none of those have been frivolous but one of them has
concerned, as the gentleman from Michigan well knows, frivolous
lawsuits by prisoners.
While he may ridicule the idea that we are prohibiting suits about
peanut butter sandwiches or that judges can throw out frivolous
lawsuits today, the fact is the underlying principle of that bill has
to do with exhausting administrative remedies, and is going to make it
very much more difficult for prisoners to bring up frivolous lawsuits
in the first place and make it a lot easier for judges to throw them
out, not just for peanut butter sandwiches but for lots of other
things.
Mr. SCHUMER. Mr. Chairman, will the gentleman yield?
Mr. McCOLLUM. I yield to the gentleman from New York.
Mr. SCHUMER. Mr. Chairman, I appreciate the gentleman for his
courtesy. I just want to reiterate that for him and the chairman I have
utmost respect. I think they have been trying to move a crime agenda
along. I am only asking the gentleman to yield because we have yielded
back our time.
The arguments of the gentleman from Colorado were the most sophistic
[[Page H4328]]
I have ever seen about the open rule. We have a minor, narrowly drawn
bill where no one wants to amend it, and the gentleman from Colorado
has a big brass band with flags saying, ``See, we're doing an open
rule.''
If the gentleman had listened to my point, it was not objecting to an
open rule on this legislation but it was objecting to the fact that on
far more weighty pieces of legislation, there is no open rule at all.
When this majority was in the minority before the gentleman from
Colorado got here, they complained royally at the fact that there were
closed rules or modified closed rules, and yet when they got into
power, this minority, now majority, has far more restricted the rules
process than the majority ever did.
So the point is not that this is an open rule. I agree with the bill.
I think it deserves about 5 minutes of debate. What I disagree with is
the inability to debate crime issues, weighty issues, many of which I
agree with the gentleman from Florida on, many of which I disagree. But
we have had no opportunity to debate it because every major bill where
we have debated crime has been under a closed rule where lots of
amendments were not allowed or would not be allowed on this bill.
I thank the gentleman for yielding.
Mr. McCOLLUM. Reclaiming my time from the gentleman, I would point
out to him that next week, I believe, there will be a couple more crime
bills out here under open rules. I would like to see more of them all
year long. Certainly we believe in that.
Mr. Chairman, I yield to the gentleman from Colorado [Mr. McInnis], a
member of the Committee on Rules, for a response to that.
Mr. McINNIS. Mr. Chairman, I, of course, find the comments amusing.
All the gentleman from New York has done from what I have seen, and I
saw him just a minute ago from my office, is complain, complain and
complain. There is nothing we are going to do as long as we are
Republicans, especially in an election year, that is going to make him
happy. I can understand that, but I did not really come over to debate
him. I came over to explain to my colleagues, this is an open rule.
Sure, there are some Members of this House who will complain about
everything we do, but the fact is there is no justification for
complaint either on the open rule and there is certainly no
justification, in my opinion, to oppose this bill. This is a good bill.
It cleans up the U.S. Marshals Service, it puts in some very basic
reforms, and once again I commend the gentleman from Florida who I
think, by the way, has really taken the lead of the pack on putting
some important crime legislation into this country and into law in this
country.
Mr. SCHUMER. Mr. Chairman, will the gentleman yield?
Mr. McCOLLUM. I yield very briefly to the gentleman from New York.
Mr. SCHUMER. Mr. Chairman, I will give an example, one, to the
gentleman from Colorado, a member of the Rules Committee. The vast
majority of people in this body, the vast majority of law enforcement
people would like a bill to ban cop killer bullets. We were prohibited
by the Rules Committee on three different occasions in legislation from
allowing that to be admitted. I could name many, many, many amendments
that the gentleman would disagree with me or agree with me, that we are
not allowed to debate. Let us be honest about it.
Mr. McCOLLUM. Reclaiming my time, Mr. Chairman, I will respond, and I
am not going to yield more on this subject.
I want to say to my good friend from New York, he and I will debate
some of the gun issues for a long time to come in the future. Cop
killer bullets, as I know them defined today, are already banned by
law.
Obviously, there is a great dispute over somebody wanting to set some
standard that nobody knows yet is going to be a bad bullet that is
going to actually pierce any of the kind of things that the cops wear
to protect themselves. If he can show me that, I have always been
willing to ban such a billet.
The problem is, this is an example of how we can get off track and
get our political rhetoric going today, when we really ought to be
together on fighting crime and this bill ought to be celebrated today.
This, as the gentleman from Colorado [Mr. McInnis] said, is an
extraordinarily important bill. Maybe it does not deserve, in and of
itself, a lot of debate time, but it deserves the attention that this
debate should draw on it because it is a constructive important step to
finally end the politics in the appointment of U.S. marshals and make
them conform, the service comform to the same kind of professionalism
that the FBI, the DEA, and other Federal law enforcement bodies have.
There is no reason not to do this. The U.S. attorneys office, which
was brought up by my colleague from Michigan, is an entirely different
animal. Maybe we ought to take some of the politics out of them, but
that is not a Federal law enforcement agency. The U.S. Marshals Service
is, and it is the only one today that does not have the kind of removal
from politics that this bill would give it. I therefore am very proud
of the bill and urge the adoption of this bill.
The CHAIRMAN. All time for general debate has expired.
The committee amendment in the nature of a substitute printed in the
bill shall be considered by sections as an original bill for the
purpose of amendment, and pursuant to the rule each section is
considered as having been read.
During consideration of the bill for amendment, the Chairman of the
Committee of the Whole may accord priority in recognition to a Member
offering an amendment that he has printed in the designated place in
the Congressional Record. Those amendments will be considered as having
been read.
The clerk will designate section 1.
The text of section 1 is as follows:
SECTION 1. SHORT TITLE.
This Act may be cited as the ``United States Marshals
Service Improvement Act of 1996''.
The CHAIRMAN. Are there amendments to section 1? If not, the Clerk
will designate section 2.
The text of section 2 is as follows:
SEC. 2. APPOINTMENTS OF MARSHALS.
(a) In General.--Chapter 37 of title 28, United States
Code, is amended--
(1) in section 561(c)--
(A) by striking ``The President shall appoint, by and with
the advice and consent of the Senate,'' and inserting ``The
Attorney General shall appoint''; and
(B) by inserting ``United States marshals shall be
appointed subject to the provisions of title 5 governing
appointments in the competitive civil service, and shall be
paid in accordance with the provisions of chapter 51 and
subchapter III of chapter 53 of such title relating to
classification and pay rates.'' after the first sentence;
(2) by striking subsection (d) of section 561;
(3) by redesignating subsections (e), (f), (g), (h), and
(i) section 561 as subsections (d), (e), (f), (g), and (h),
respectively; and
(4) by striking section 562.
(b) Clerical Amendment.--the table of sections at the
beginning of chapter 37 of title 28, United States Code, is
amended by striking the item relating to section 562.
The CHAIRMAN. Are there amendments to section 2? If not, the Clerk
will designate section 3.
The text of section 3 is as follows:
SEC. 3. TRANSITIONAL PROVISIONS; PRESIDENTIAL APPOINTMENT OF
CERTAIN UNITED STATES MARSHALS.
(a) Incumbent Marshals.--Notwithstanding the amendments
made by this Act, each marshal appointed under chapter 37 of
title 28, United States Code, before the date of the
enactment of this Act shall, unless that marshal resigns or
is removed by the President, continue to perform the duties
of that office until the expiration of that marshal's term
and the appointment of a successor.
(b) Vacancies After Enactment.--Notwithstanding the
amendments made by this Act, with respect to the first
vacancy which occurs in the office of United States marshal
in any district, during the period beginning on the date of
the enactment of this Act and ending on December 31, 1999,
the President shall appoint, by and with the advice and
consent of the Senate, a marshal to fill that vacancy for a
term of 4 years. Any marshal appointed by the President under
this subsection shall, unless that marshal resigns or is
removed from office by the President, continue to perform the
duties of that office after the end of the four-year term to
which such marshal was appointed until a successor is
appointed.
The CHAIRMAN. Are there amendments to section 3? If not, the question
is on the committee amendment in the nature of a substitute.
The Committee amendment in the nature of a substitute was agreed to.
The CHAIRMAN. Under the rule, the Committee rises.
Accordingly, the Committee rose; and the Speaker pro tempore (Mr.
Dickey) having assumed the chair, Mr.
[[Page H4329]]
Wicker, Chairman of the Committee of the Whole House on the State of
the Union, reported that that Committee, having had under consideration
the bill (H.R. 2641), to amend title 28, United States Code, to provide
for appointment of U.S. marshals by the Director of the U.S. Marshals
Service, pursuant to House Resolution 418, he reported the bill back to
the House with an amendment adopted by the Committee of the Whole.
The SPEAKER pro tempore. Under the rule, the previous question is
ordered.
The question is on the committee amendment in the nature of a
substitute.
The committee amendment in the nature of a substitute was agreed to.
The SPEAKER pro tempore. The question is on the engrossment and third
reading of the bill.
The bill was ordered to be engrossed and read a third time, and was
read the third time.
The SPEAKER pro tempore. The question is on the passage of the bill.
The question was taken; and the Speaker pro tempore announced that
the ayes appeared to have it.
Mr. BISHOP. 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 351,
nays 72, not voting 10, as follows:
[Roll No. 141]
YEAS--351
Abercrombie
Ackerman
Allard
Andrews
Archer
Armey
Bachus
Baesler
Baker (CA)
Baker (LA)
Baldacci
Ballenger
Barcia
Barr
Barrett (NE)
Bartlett
Barton
Bass
Bateman
Becerra
Beilenson
Bentsen
Bereuter
Bevill
Bilbray
Bilirakis
Bliley
Blute
Boehlert
Boehner
Bonilla
Bono
Borski
Boucher
Brewster
Browder
Brown (CA)
Brown (OH)
Brownback
Bryant (TN)
Bunn
Bunning
Burr
Burton
Buyer
Callahan
Calvert
Camp
Campbell
Canady
Cardin
Castle
Chabot
Chambliss
Chapman
Chenoweth
Christensen
Chrysler
Clement
Clinger
Coble
Coburn
Collins (GA)
Combest
Condit
Cooley
Cox
Cramer
Crane
Crapo
Cremeans
Cubin
Cunningham
Danner
Davis
de la Garza
Deal
DeLauro
DeLay
Deutsch
Diaz-Balart
Dickey
Dicks
Dixon
Doggett
Dooley
Doolittle
Dornan
Doyle
Dreier
Dunn
Durbin
Edwards
Ehlers
Ehrlich
Emerson
English
Ensign
Evans
Everett
Ewing
Farr
Fawell
Fazio
Fields (TX)
Flanagan
Foley
Fowler
Fox
Frank (MA)
Franks (CT)
Franks (NJ)
Frelinghuysen
Frisa
Frost
Funderburk
Furse
Gallegly
Ganske
Gekas
Geren
Gilchrest
Gillmor
Gilman
Gonzalez
Goodlatte
Goodling
Gordon
Graham
Greene (UT)
Greenwood
Gunderson
Gutierrez
Gutknecht
Hall (OH)
Hall (TX)
Hamilton
Hancock
Hansen
Harman
Hastert
Hastings (WA)
Hayes
Hayworth
Hefley
Heineman
Herger
Hilleary
Hobson
Hoekstra
Hoke
Horn
Hostettler
Houghton
Hoyer
Hunter
Hutchinson
Hyde
Inglis
Istook
Johnson (CT)
Johnson (SD)
Johnson, Sam
Johnston
Jones
Kasich
Kelly
Kennedy (RI)
Kennelly
Kim
King
Kingston
Klug
Knollenberg
Kolbe
LaFalce
LaHood
Lantos
Largent
Latham
LaTourette
Laughlin
Lazio
Leach
Levin
Lewis (CA)
Lewis (KY)
Lightfoot
Lincoln
Linder
Lipinski
Livingston
LoBiondo
Lofgren
Longley
Lowey
Lucas
Luther
Maloney
Manton
Manzullo
Markey
Martinez
Martini
Mascara
Matsui
McCarthy
McCollum
McCrery
McDade
McHale
McHugh
McInnis
McIntosh
McKeon
Meehan
Menendez
Metcalf
Meyers
Mica
Millender-McDonald
Miller (CA)
Miller (FL)
Minge
Mink
Moakley
Montgomery
Moorhead
Moran
Morella
Myrick
Nadler
Nethercutt
Neumann
Ney
Norwood
Nussle
Oberstar
Ortiz
Orton
Oxley
Packard
Pallone
Parker
Pastor
Paxon
Payne (VA)
Pelosi
Peterson (MN)
Petri
Pickett
Pombo
Pomeroy
Porter
Portman
Pryce
Quillen
Quinn
Radanovich
Ramstad
Reed
Regula
Richardson
Riggs
Rivers
Roberts
Rogers
Rohrabacher
Ros-Lehtinen
Rose
Roth
Roukema
Roybal-Allard
Royce
Sabo
Salmon
Sanford
Saxton
Scarborough
Schaefer
Schiff
Schroeder
Schumer
Scott
Seastrand
Sensenbrenner
Serrano
Shadegg
Shaw
Shays
Shuster
Sisisky
Skaggs
Skeen
Skelton
Slaughter
Smith (MI)
Smith (NJ)
Smith (TX)
Smith (WA)
Solomon
Souder
Spence
Spratt
Stearns
Stenholm
Stockman
Studds
Stump
Stupak
Talent
Tanner
Tate
Tauzin
Taylor (MS)
Taylor (NC)
Tejeda
Thomas
Thornberry
Thornton
Thurman
Tiahrt
Torkildsen
Torres
Torricelli
Traficant
Upton
Velazquez
Vento
Volkmer
Vucanovich
Walsh
Wamp
Ward
Watt (NC)
Watts (OK)
Waxman
Weldon (FL)
Weldon (PA)
Weller
Whitfield
Wicker
Wilson
Wise
Wolf
Woolsey
Yates
Young (AK)
Young (FL)
Zeliff
Zimmer
NAYS--72
Barrett (WI)
Bishop
Bonior
Brown (FL)
Clayton
Clyburn
Coleman
Collins (IL)
Collins (MI)
Conyers
Costello
Coyne
Cummings
DeFazio
Dellums
Dingell
Duncan
Engel
Eshoo
Fattah
Fields (LA)
Filner
Flake
Foglietta
Forbes
Ford
Gejdenson
Gephardt
Gibbons
Green (TX)
Hastings (FL)
Hefner
Hilliard
Hinchey
Holden
Jackson (IL)
Jackson-Lee (TX)
Jacobs
Jefferson
Johnson, E. B.
Kanjorski
Kennedy (MA)
Kildee
Klink
Lewis (GA)
McDermott
McKinney
McNulty
Meek
Mollohan
Murtha
Neal
Obey
Olver
Owens
Payne (NJ)
Peterson (FL)
Poshard
Rahall
Rangel
Roemer
Rush
Sanders
Sawyer
Stark
Stokes
Thompson
Towns
Visclosky
Waters
Williams
Wynn
NOT VOTING--10
Berman
Bryant (TX)
Clay
Goss
Kaptur
Kleczka
Molinari
Myers
Walker
White
{time} 1429
Mr. HOYER and Mr. TORRES changed their vote from ``nay'' to ``yea.''
So the bill was passed.
The result of the vote was announced as above recorded.
The title was amended so as to read: ``A bill to amend title 28,
United States Code, to provide for appointment of United States
marshals by the Attorney General.''
A motion to reconsider was laid on the table.
____________________