[Congressional Record Volume 142, Number 97 (Thursday, June 27, 1996)]
[House]
[Pages H7040-H7050]
From the Congressional Record Online through the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
PROVIDING FOR CONSIDERATION OF CONCURRENT RESOLUTION PROVIDING FOR
ADJOURNMENT OF HOUSE AND SENATE FOR INDEPENDENCE DAY DISTRICT WORK
PERIOD
Mr. DIAZ-BALART. Mr. Speaker, by direction of the Committee on Rules,
I call up House Resolution 465 and ask for its immediate consideration.
The Clerk read the resolution, as follows:
H. Res. 465
Resolved, That upon the adoption of this resolution it
shall be in order, any rule of the House to the contrary
notwithstanding, to consider in the House a concurrent
resolution providing for adjournment of the House and Senate
for the Independence Day district work period.
The SPEAKER pro tempore (Mr. LaHood). The gentleman from Florida [Mr.
Diaz-Balart] is recognized for 1 hour.
Mr. DIAZ-BALART. Mr. Speaker, for purposes of debate only, I yield
the customary 30 minutes to the gentleman from Massachusetts [Mr.
Moakley], pending which I yield myself such time as I may consume.
During consideration of this resolution, all time yielded is for
purposes of debate only.
Mr. Speaker, House Resolution 465 provides for the consideration in
the House of a concurrent resolution providing for the adjournment of
the House and Senate for the Independence Day district work period. All
points of order are waived against the resolution and its
consideration.
Because of the many open rules that have been granted by this
Congress' Rules Committee--60 percent have been open or modified open--
which have led to many vigorous but lengthy debates and amending
processes on the floor, the House has not yet been able to complete
action on all of the appropriations bills and reconciliation
legislation. Therefore, while adjournment resolutions are usually
privileged, a rule is needed to waive the point of order that could be
raised against the Fourth of July district work period resolution on
the grounds that it violates sections 309 and 310(f) of the Budget Act.
These sections prohibit the House of Representatives from adjourning
for more than 3 days in July unless the House has completed action on
all appropriations bills and any required reconciliation legislation.
In addition, it should be noted that adjournment resolutions are not
debatable, and upon adoption of this rule, the House proceeds to a vote
on the adjournment resolution itself without further debate.
Mr. Speaker, the House has completed as many of the appropriations
bills as possible, and we are over halfway there. The House has
approved the appropriations measures for military construction, foreign
operations, Agriculture, Defense, Interior, and VA-HUD and tonight, we
will work on the transportations bill, and the remaining appropriations
and reconciliation measures are to be considered in a timely matter
after next week. We have certainly made progress with the
administration during this year's appropriations cycle over last year's
process, and I am confident that the House will continue to make
appropriate spending decisions after the Independence Day district work
period.
Independence Day is a time to be back in our districts, celebrating
the birth of this great Nation, and listening to what our constituents
have to say about the issues that are important to them.
The Congress has very important spending decisions to make, with
limited funds, and time spent in our districts listening to the
priorities of our constituents will be very worthwhile. Therefore, Mr.
Speaker, I feel that it is totally reasonable that the House return to
our districts for the Independence Day work period, to reflect together
with our constituents on the principles put forth by our Founding
Fathers in 1776 that form the basis of our limited, representative
Government.
I urge adoption of the resolution, and I reserve the balance of my
time, Mr. Speaker.
Mr. MOAKLEY. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume.
Mr. Speaker, I want to make something perfectly clear, we are voting
on this recess rule because, once again, the Republicans have not done
their job.
This rule will waive provisions of law that require the Congress to
get its work done before it recesses for July 4.
So, Mr. Speaker, my Republican colleagues barely managed to fulfill
their responsibility last year and it looks like they might not get it
done this year either.
Congress' primary responsibility is to pass 13 appropriations bills
so that the Federal Government can function.
[[Page H7041]]
Section 309 of the Budget Act says the House cannot leave for July 4
until all 13 appropriations bills are passed. But, since my Republican
colleagues have spent their time cutting Medicare and education to pay
for tax breaks for the very rich, they haven't finished all of the
appropriations bills.
Mr. Speaker, after last year's budget fiasco I hoped my Republican
colleagues would have learned their lesson.
After Speaker Gingrich closed the Government not once, but twice.
After Speaker Gingrich had to pass an unprecedented 13 continuing
resolutions last year in order to buy time, I had hoped my Republican
colleagues would decide to join us in putting families first this year.
But it looks like we're not there yet.
Last year the Contract on America was holding things up. Now, despite
the contract's fizzling out, my Republican colleagues have only
finished 7 of the 13 appropriations bills they were supposed to finish.
That is not the way Congress is supposed to run, Mr. Speaker.
And that's not the way the Democrats ran things.
During the last session in which the Democrats were in charge, 12
appropriations bills had passed the House by June 29. The last bill
passed the House 2 weeks later.
And, contrary to what some may assert, the inability of the
Republicans to get their job done has nothing to do with open or closed
rules. This year, 60 percent of the rules have been restrictive. We
haven't been spending time openly discussing and amending legislation.
Instead, my Republican colleagues have made enormous cuts in
education, Medicare, and environmental protection, most to pay for tax
breaks for the very rich.
Mr. Speaker, that's not what the American people want. They want
their needs to be given priority over the needs of the special
interests, and they want Congress to stay until it gets the job done.
I urge my colleagues to join me in opposing this rule. My Republican
colleagues should do the work they were sent here to do.
Mr. Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.
Mr. DIAZ-BALART. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may
consume.
Mr. Speaker, I am reminded that in one of his essays, George Orwell
wrote that ``Hypocrisy is the British vice.'' Our distinguished friend,
the gentleman from Massachusetts, seems to adamantly wish to replicate
that trait in this House. I went back just three Congresses, Mr.
Speaker, three Congresses, 6 years, in reviewing the record on this
issue of the Fourth of July break. Not once, not once during those 6
years, not once were all 13 appropriations bills passed at the time of
the July recess.
Mr. Speaker, do Members know how many times we, when we were in the
minority, failed to grant the majority unanimous consent on this issue?
Not once. So I maintain that George Orwell's trait, when he referred to
it as a British trait is being replicated at this point at this time in
this House.
Mr. Speaker, I yield such time as he may consume to the gentleman
from New York [Mr. Solomon].
Mr. SOLOMON. I thank the gentleman for yielding time to me.
Mr. Speaker, it is a shame we have to be here wasting an hour on this
adjournment resolution. I have never in my 18 years here heard such
crybabies. What do the very rich have to do with this adjournment
thing? On that side of the aisle, they seem to think that anybody with
a job is very rich. Do Members know what I think? I think many of the
Members who have never run a business ought to resign and ought to go
out and meet a payroll. Then I do not think we would hear this ``very,
very rich'' business anymore.
Let me just reinforce what my colleague on the Committee on Rules has
just pointed out. That is that the Democrats have no grounds for
complaints about this Fourth of July, Independence-Day-adjournment
resolution, given their own track record.
Let us look at the facts. Our earlier studies show that not once in
the last 6 years of the Democrat-controlled Congress in this House did
they meet the July recess deadline for completing action on the 13
appropriation bills; as the gentleman just said, not once. So what are
they standing up here crying for, and making all these absurd
statements?
Since I thought that might be unfair to the Democrats to only go back
6 years, today I had the staff go back at least 10 years. We can go
back 40, if Members want to. Sure enough, in one of those years, 1988,
they actually did complete House action on all 13 appropriation bills
by the July recess, once, back in 1988. Did the Members remember that?
I was here, I remember it. I see the gentleman's hand go up, he
remembers it. In all fairness to the Democrats, they did meet the
deadline under the Budget Act at one time in their last decade in
control of this House. That is a fact, Mr. Speaker.
How does that compare to the Republican 104th Congress? While the
average number of appropriation bills the Democrats passed by the July
recess in their last 10 years was 6.2, our average, counting today's
transportation appropriation bill, which will finish about midnight
tonight because of the wasted time here on this foolish bill, we have
completed 7 last year, 6 this year. That averages out to more than they
did over all those years, gentlemen.
So notwithstanding the fact that we still are rather new at all this,
we have only been at it about 18 months now, we are still doing better
than those guys did all these years. Mr. Speaker, what is really
disturbing is the Democrats would take the time of this House of
forcing this matter into the Committee on Rules for a special rule,
just so they can say they are making some kind of an issue here.
{time} 1815
Our survey of the last 10 years of Democratic control shows that in
each year of that decade, the Republican minority, that was us then,
permitted these resolutions to come up on the floor under a unanimous-
consent statement. We did not waste all of this body and paying all of
this overtime to all of these people on this foolish resolution. We
acted instead in the spirit of bipartisan cooperation. That is comity.
Remember what it used to sound like?
We used to have some comity in this body. So it is indeed sad that
the Democrats have stooped to this to make a partisan issue on this
Independence Day.
I am going to tell my colleagues something. I live up in the Hudson
Valley. I represent the Catskills and the Adirondack Mountains. That is
where the Revolutionary War was fought, Independence Day, July 4. I
want you to come up and see where General John Burgoyne surrendered to
Horatio Gates. That was the turning point. That was the battle that
made this the greatest, freest Nation on earth.
What are we fooling around here for? All of us pack up our bags and
let us go home. Let us see what it is really like back home, and let us
stop talking very, very, very much. I never heard such goings-on. I
will back up with fact this study, Mr. Speaker.
Mr. Speaker, I yield back the balance of my time.
Mr. MOAKLEY. Mr. Speaker, the reason I bring that up is because the
Republicans said they were going to run the Committee on Rules
completely different. They were going to run the Congress completely
different. And they have not. That is why 60 percent of the rules have
been closed and they have not brought the appropriation bills forward.
So they are not doing what they said they would do.
Mr. Speaker, I yield 9 minutes to the gentleman from Wisconsin [Mr.
Obey], the ranking member on the Committee on Appropriations.
Mr. OBEY. Mr. Speaker, I would like to not talk so much about the
past but about the present and the future.
The situation, as this chart shows, is that, if we take a look at
what has happened to each of the 13 appropriation bills that we are
supposed to be passing this fiscal year, so far 7 of them, those in red
that reach this line here, 7 of them by the end of the day will have
passed the House. Only one will have passed the Senate. There are three
more which are moving their way through the Committee on
Appropriations, and there are three which have not yet begun the move
through the Committee on Appropriations. So that means that 7 out of
the 13 will be passed through the House by the end of the day.
[[Page H7042]]
That is absolutely not the fault of the gentleman from Louisiana [Mr.
Livingston] or the leadership of the Committee on Appropriations. But I
do think we need to look at what the problems are so that we can try to
deal with them.
The problem, the main problem is that, first of all, the budget
resolution was 2 months late. Because of that, the Committee on
Appropriations has been forced to do in approximately 3 weeks time what
ordinarily would take about 10 weeks to accomplish. That is in my view
the price that was paid for the extremism that was reflected in the
general budget resolution. Even the Republican majority in the Senate
could not take the extremism represented by the House-passed budget
resolution, and they demanded substantial changes. It took a long time
to get them. That put us behind.
Second, we also have what I would describe as the ``my-way-or-no-
way'' mentality, which still apparently dominates the majority party
caucus in this House on a number of these appropriation bills. Example:
Just last night we had an effort made by the gentleman from Ohio [Mr.
Stokes] to offer an amendment which would have repaired the problems on
the VA-HUD bill.
The subcommittee chairman, Mr. Lewis, graciously recognized that we
had a problem and tried to deal with it, but he was overcome by the
extremists in his own caucus. So they would up refusing to provide the
major fix-ups that everybody knows are going to be necessary in that
VA-HUD bill if the bill is ever going to become law. If those fix-ups
are not made, we are simply going to have a bill that goes nowhere.
Just this morning in the Committee on Appropriations on the Treasury,
Post Office bill, accommodation was reached on several items. But it
has been made quite clear by the Treasury Department and by the
Committee on Ways and Means, for instance, if I could add that, that
the committee is insisting on extreme actions with respect to dictating
how the IRS goes about modernization. They are insisting on taking
actions which the Republican leadership on the Committee on Ways and
Means says will lead to a loss of revenue. And if you have a loss of
revenue, you are going to have an addition to the deficit. Yet when
efforts were made to try to fix that problem, they were all rejected.
So it is ``our-way-or-no-way.''
Again, it is quite clear from my conversations with Treasury that
that bill will not see the light of day. It will never become law
unless it is repaired so that we do not damage the ability of the IRS
to collect the taxes that are due under law.
The Interior appropriation bill, because of the extreme allocation
provided, has already been put on the veto list. In addition to that,
the Labor HEW bill, because of the woefully inadequate allocation winds
up providing $2.5 billion less for education alone than the President
is requesting. That is going to mean a long stalemate unless we have a
much more flexible attitude exhibited by the majority party in this
House.
Mr. Speaker, I want to correct a little bit of history here. The last
year that our party controlled this House, I chaired the Committee on
Appropriations. We passed every single appropriation bill before the
end of the fiscal year, every single one. Now, we did not do that
because of any peculiar wisdom on my part. We did it because my party
leadership allowed me to cross the aisle, go to the Republican
leadership on the committee and work out a bipartisan allocation under
the 602 budget process under which we agreed on a bipartisan basis how
much money would go into each of those 13 spending bills. Because we
had reached bipartisan agreement, we were able to pass all 13 of those
appropriation bills on time.
The leadership of the Committee on Appropriations was never allowed
to do that this year because of the extreme agenda already referred to
by the gentleman from Massachusetts, which requires that we squeeze
every last dollar out of education and every last dollar out of job
training in order to fund tax cuts for people making $200,000 a year.
That is the problem. Until that is gotten over by the majority party in
this House, it is not going to be possible to pass these bills, and we
risk running into the same kind of chaos that we had last year.
I would remind by colleagues that there are only 31 working days left
before the end of the fiscal year. Can anybody tell me they really
believe we are going to be able to finish all 13 appropriation bills,
half of which are not yet through the House, only one of which is
through the Senate, unless we get a far more flexible and a far more
bipartisan attitude on the part of the majority than we have gotten to
date?
Now, I know that the leadership of the Committee on Appropriations
has tried everything possible to get their bills done on time, but they
cannot be expected to perform legislatively impossible acts. When the
leadership on the majority side does not understand the realities of
passing appropriations legislation, then they put the leadership of the
Committee on Appropriations in an impossible situation; and no matter
how hard they try, they cannot deliver on an impossible set of orders.
So I would suggest, I know there is plenty of goodwill on the part of
the majority on the Committee on Appropriations, and I know that people
are used to being workhorses on the committee. They are used to trying
to work things out in ways which make reasonable accommodations to
people who happen to sometimes disagree with them. We had to do it when
we were in control of the House. I would suggest that the majority
party needs to understand that we had to do it when we were in the
House if we wanted to get things done on time and if we wanted to get
things done in a way which brings credit to this House.
So I think it is essential that we have a more reasonable attitude
demonstrated by the majority leadership in this House. I think it is
essential that we recognize that there are going to have to be major
changes in the budget allowances provided these bills, because the
President is not going to accept and the country is not going to accept
short sheeting education, short sheeting job training, short sheeting
other programs that are needed by middle class working people in order
to provide $11 billion more than the President and the Pentagon are
asking for, and in order to salt away money for tax cuts for high-
income people. That just is not going to happen.
So if my colleagues want to know what is in store for us, recognize
we are only halfway home in passing the bills through the House. Our
principal obligation under the Constitution in this Congress is to pass
our appropriation bills. I plead with my colleagues, we cannot get that
done unless there is a much more flexible attitude on the part of the
top party leadership in this House so that we can reach reasonable
bipartisan accommodation and get the job done the way the country
expects us to get the job done.
Mr. DIAZ-BALART. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may
consume.
(Mr. DIAZ-BALART asked and was given permission to revise and extend
his remarks and include extraneous material.)
Mr. DIAZ-BALART. Mr. Speaker, I think it is important to realize the
longer we take discussing this rule, the longer it will be until we can
get to the seventh appropriation bill, the seventh appropriation bill,
which we want to pass tonight.
Mr. Speaker, I yield 5 minutes to the distinguished gentleman from
Colorado [Mr. McInnis] of the Committee on Rules.
Mr. McINNIS. Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentleman from Florida for
allotting me the time to address some of the statements that have been
made previously.
First of all, I think we should start out with the preceding speaker,
who keeps using on a routine basis the word short cheating. I am not
sure what short cheating is, but I can tell the previous speaker that
shortchanging is exactly what he is doing to the American people by
continuing to frivolously argue a procedural motion. This is a motion
that, when we were in the minority for at least the 6 years that we
have researched, we never had a debate like this. We did it on a
unanimous resolution.
Let me give my colleagues the history of what we have here, the
criticism we are receiving. Let us first of all talk about what it is
we are debating. What we are debating is a very simple management
procedure, and
[[Page H7043]]
that is to put this House in adjournment so that the Members of this
House can go back to their districts on July 4 and work in their
districts. Very simple. Very noncontroversial. Every year except now.
All of a sudden it is a golden opportunity to whine about the majority.
Well, let us look at what we did, when we were in the minority and
they were in the majority on the July 4 resolution for adjournment.
In the 99th Congress, the first session, did they have a special rule
for this? No. We did it on unanimous consent. Did they have their
appropriation bills passed? No. The 99th, second session. Did we
require a special rule? No. Did they have their number of
appropriations bills passed? No. On the 100th, for the first and second
session both, did we require a special rule? No. Did they have their
appropriations passed? No. The same thing for the 101st. The same thing
for the 102d. The same thing for the 103d.
Why are my colleagues trying to stall this? This is not a game. We
need to get to work.
Last night Members on both sides of the aisle in this House worked
until 2 o'clock. Tonight, especially the way it is going right now, we
will probably be here until 2 o'clock again. These people need to get
back to their districts. This is not a controversial issue.
What has happened is, some Members have captured this as an issue to
cry about being in the minority, to stand up and whine and whine.
Frankly, we are not accomplishing anything.
Let us make a couple of points of clarification. The gentleman
preceding me is a very good speaker. He brought up a nice chart, it
looks great. He talked about how when he was on the Committee on
Appropriations, when he was chairman of the Committee on
Appropriations, why they were able to pass all of these bills by the
end of the fiscal year.
Well, we are not talking about the end of the fiscal year on July 4,
That comes on September 30. That is still several months away. We need
to compare apples to apples. When we compare apples to apples, we find
that the minority cooperated, and that is a word that we ought to use
around here, cooperated with the majority when we were in the minority
for the July 4 adjournment so that Members could go back to their
districts for the July 4 holiday, although, as all of us know, it is
not really a holiday because we participate in parades and we want to
work our districts, and I think we should work our districts.
{time} 1830
I think it is also very important to note, and I hear it again from
the preceding speaker, about on one hand the gentleman says we need to
have more cooperation around here. On the other hand, taking a look at
the record of the gentleman's comments, probably every fifth sentence
he turns around and calls it extreme positions, the extremists over
here, the short-cheating, these kind of verbal attacks. That is not
going to get us anywhere. Let us cooperate. We have got a lot of work
left yet to do tonight and I think we need to focus on that work. I
think we would much better spend our time dealing with issues of
substance instead of arguing about a simple management procedural
resolution.
Mr. MOAKLEY. Mr. Speaker, I yield 30 seconds to the gentleman from
Wisconsin [Mr. Obey], the ranking minority member of the Committee on
Appropriations.
Mr. OBEY. Mr. Speaker, I would simply note for the gentleman's
attention that three Members of your own caucus have described what you
did on the budget last year as being silly extremism and I agree with
them.
Mr. MOAKLEY. Mr. Speaker, I yield 4 minutes to the gentleman from
Texas [Mr. Doggett].
Mr. DOGGETT. Mr. Speaker, I am stunned genuinely to hear the last
speaker refer to whining, to refer to crying. I find even more stunning
the comments of the distinguished chair of the Rules Committee
referring to crybabies. I had thought that would be an incident that
our Republican colleagues would just as soon forget, because all
America knows there was only one crybaby involved in all this and that
is what finally led to the Government shutdown last November.
Mr. Speaker, I think that America can look at what is happening here
tonight and can say in short, ``Been there, done that.'' We had your
hurry-up-and-stop approach to government all of the last year. Where
did it lead America? It led us down the road to two very costly
Government shutdowns, and when all was said and done and we followed
your path, the American taxpayer got a bill for $1.5 billion of wasted
taxpayer money because you did not do your job and then a crybaby came
along and pouted and we ended up with a Government shutdown and no
budget.
The law on this is very clear. You are such revolutionaries
apparently you would believe in flouting the law instead of following
the law. The law does not say anything to prevent Mr. Solomon from
going to upstate New York and talking to all the other revolutionaries
that he might want to talk to. It says you can take 3 days and have
your watermelon and your apple pie and make your Fourth of July speech
but if you do not have your work done, come back to Washington and get
it done.
The only reason that you are having to offer this resolution is you
do not want to do that work. You do not want to follow the Budget Act
that is written into our law. If you did that, you would not need this
resolution. You profess so much concern about the budget, about getting
it balanced, about protecting future generations. I share that concern.
Mr. Speaker, it is unique that the gentleman from Cleveland would ask
me to yield. He is the one who raised the crybaby point last November
when a crybaby did lead to the problems that we have in this country.
Mr. HOKE. Will the gentleman yield since he used my name?
Mr. DOGGETT. On your time I will yield for the full 30 minutes but on
my time I want to talk about the way you are flouting the law, flouting
the Congressional Budget Act. If you think that act is inappropriate,
then change the law, but it is on the books.
Tonight we find that only half of the appropriations bills have been
passed, and we further find that our Republican colleagues, including
those who have asked me to yield, have boasted of the fact that they do
not plan to complete their work, never planned to complete it, because,
purely for political advantage, they have decided to wait until
September, not until July as the law requires but to wait until
September to even bring up the last reconciliation act, so they plan to
provide us the same old kind of brinksmanship that led to the
Government shutdown, that led to the crybaby incident, that produced
the failure of the last Congress. I think America does not want a
repeat of that kind of failure. It cost us too much before, and it
resulted in a great deal of pain and anguish for millions of American
citizens. I know it takes you time to get this job done, especially
when you want to cut Medicare and you want to cut education and you
want to put all these restrictions on enforcing our environmental laws.
It takes a lot of time to figure out how to do it. But it is wrong and
you ought to stay here and get your job done.
Mr. DIAZ-BALART. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may
consume.
Mr. Speaker, as I listened with wonder to the other side, I thought
it was the water for a while, but no, Mr. Speaker, it is the political
calendar. And what marvelous, weird things the political calendar can
do. Not once over the last 6 years did they finish their appropriations
bills, and we always gave them unanimous consent. Now at least the
distinguished former chairman of the Rules Committee, the distinguished
ranking member said, ``Well, we thought that they would be different.''
The reality of the matter is we are different because we are
balancing the budget. At least we expected them to be in one way
similar to how we were, and, that is, in essential courtesy. But they
did not grant us unanimous consent.
Mr. Speaker, I yield 5 minutes to the gentleman from Florida [Mr.
Mica].
Mr. MICA. Mr. Speaker, I heard with great dismay the other side of
the aisle, some of the previous speakers, talk about the Republican
extreme agenda. I want to talk about the Republican agenda and respond
to their comments. I have heard that, I hope,
[[Page H7044]]
for the last time. They talk about Republican proposed changes in
education, in job training, environment, and welfare. I want to talk
about my perspective and how I came here and what I saw and what we
tried to do.
First of all, let us look at education. We did not propose any cuts
over the next 7 years in education. We actually proposed an increase in
expenditures of $24 billion. It is not just how much money you spend on
education or any other program. We are spending more money, billions of
hard earned taxpayers' dollars on education, we are spending more on
programs for education. The question is how you spend the money and
what results you get.
Let us look at the results. Our children have diplomas they cannot
read. I have 71 percent of my students in central Florida in one
community college requiring remedial education upon entry. Is that
success? We are paying for metal detectors in our schools instead of
teachers. We have built an administrative bureaucracy, starting in
Washington, in Atlanta, in Tallahassee, where we are paying
administrators and we do not have money to pay teachers. Teachers and
students are our last priority. It is this bureaucracy that we have
built and we are supporting that the American people do not want.
Job training. Here is an article from several weeks ago in my local
paper. This is a State of Florida report. State and Federal governments
spend about $1 billion a year on vocational job programs in my State.
Less than 20 percent of those who enter the job training program ever
complete it. Of that, 19 percent get a job.
This is what the argument is about here. This is what it is about. We
are spending incredible amounts of money, our people are out busting
their buns sending taxpayer dollars here, and the job training programs
in my State, one State, $1 billion, a total failure.
This is what the argument is about. This is what the shutdown was
about, because for 40 years they did it their way, and this is the
result. I have students that cannot read. You try to employ someone and
get them with basic skills and you cannot do it.
The environment. We had a debate here yesterday about the
environment. Superfund, supposed to clean up hazardous waste sites.
What has it done? The money has gone for attorneys and studies. In
Florida, we have one hazardous waste site that has had six project
managers. One of the project managers came back and is now a
consultant.
I sat on the committee that oversees the EPA, and you will find that
the people that work now as consultants are former EPA employees, about
80 to 90 percent of them. An incestuous relationship.
A GAO study last year said that the sites that they picked to clean
up, the few that they clean up, are not the sites that pose the most
risk to our children's health and our public safety.
Is what we are doing with your dollars, your taxpayer dollars in the
environment, what we have done, what we have set up, is it effective?
The answer is no. You are paying more and getting less. Forty years of
tax-and-spend. They tried taxing you even more here.
I submit the reason the American people feel like they have less is
because they have less, because they have taxed you more in the past 3
years. You have less, you have less opportunity, and you have less left
over in your paycheck, whether you are a senior citizen and they taxed
your Social Security, whether they gave more money to those who wash up
on our shores illegally than they gave in benefits to our veterans.
That is what this is about. It took shutting government down. And
then the President tried to embarrass us. He was as guilty as anyone in
the process. He did not want to work together. He wanted to make
political advantage of it. This is what it is about.
Then Medicare. They destroyed Medicare. They are watching it die on
the vine and they do not care about it. I have family members who are
senior citizens that depend on Medicare. We want to save Medicare. We
want to protect Medicare. They want to destroy it.
Mr. MOAKLEY. Mr. Speaker, would the Chair tell me how much time the
gentleman from Florida [Mr. Diaz-Balart] and I have remaining?
The SPEAKER pro tempore (Mr. LaHood). The gentleman from
Massachusetts [Mr. Moakley] has 12\1/2\ minutes remaining, and
gentleman from Florida [Mr. Diaz-Balart] has 11\1/2\ minutes remaining.
Mr. MOAKLEY. Mr. Speaker, I yield 4 minutes to the gentlewoman from
Connecticut [Ms. DeLauro].
Ms. DELAURO. Mr. Speaker, I am delighted to hear the gentleman who
just spoke talk about how it took shutting the Government down. It was
their deliberate action to shut the Government down twice, and to
provide the American people with the pain that they felt in the United
States Government being shut down. By their own admission, they
deliberately shut the Government down.
As for withering on the vine, we know whose quote that is. The
Speaker of the House has talked about Medicare withering on the vine,
that ``We cannot go after it in this round, but we go after it next
year, so in fact it will wither on the vine,'' destroying Medicare for
the people today and tomorrow who depend on the Medicare system.
Also the gentleman from Florida spoke of Republicans balancing the
budget. Well, my friends, on the contrary, the exact opposite is true.
Republicans passed the budget in this House 2 weeks ago that in fact
increased the deficit for each of the next 2 years by $40 billion.
By their own admission, the Republican freshmen revolted. They said
they did not come here to increase the deficit, that in fact they came
here to balance the budget, and they revolted. However, some of them
had their arms twisted so that in fact the Republican majority could
pass a budget that increases the deficit over the next 2 years. Let us
get the facts straight.
Mr. Speaker, the adjournment resolution has been made necessary by
the majority's failure to make the progress required under the Budget
Act. This resolution is the perfect commentary for a Congress whose
legacy is a failure to live up to its fiduciary responsibility to tend
to the public interest. Half of the annual appropriations bills have
not been passed by this Chamber.
{time} 1845
The Speaker and the Republican majority, they want to go home for a
Fourth of July vacation. They shut the Government down again by their
own admission today, and they had to do it.
Mr. Speaker, last year Speaker Gingrich shut down the Government,
went home for Christmas vacation, and now the Republican majority wants
us to pass this resolution. It is a little bit like getting a note from
home, letting them off the hook because they have not done their
homework.
This is the Republican revolution, and when will these
revolutionaries grow up and take their responsibilities to the American
people seriously? Commerce, State, Energy and Water, Treasury, Postal,
Labor, Health and Human Services, and Education, the list of unfinished
business goes on and on and on for the last 20 months. They have not
fooled the American public where they have said that what they truly
want to do is to cut Medicare, Medicaid, education and the environment
to pay for tax breaks for the wealthy. That is what the last 19 months
has been about, and in the last month, they capped it off with passing
a budget that increases the deficit.
Mr. Speaker, I call on my colleagues, vote against this resolution.
Let us stay on the job until the people's business is done in the
people's House.
Mr. DIAZ-BALART. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may
consume.
Mr. Speaker, we want to get back to work. We never, when we were in
the minority, took up an hour on this procedural motion. Obviously,
they have the procedural right to do this if they so wish, and they are
doing it. It is a shame because we want to get to work on the seven
appropriations bill which we have to ready for consideration in the
House, the transportation appropriations bill.
But not all Members on the other side of the aisle want to refuse to
go to work. As a matter of fact, I would like to recognize for a couple
of minutes at this point the distinguished gentleman from the other
side of the aisle but who wants to go to work, the gentleman from Ohio
[Mr. Traficant], for 2 minutes.
Mr. TRAFICANT. Mr. Speaker, I do not want to get in the middle of a
balanced budget debate. Quite frankly, I
[[Page H7045]]
do not think either party is going to balance the budget. I think
people are going to be looking for jobs in Mexico the way things are
going around here.
I have been here a number of years, and I think there was only 1 year
under Jim Wright where we had all of these appropriation bills done by
July 4th. The American taxpayers and workers have to work till July 3
to pay for Federal taxes, State taxes, local taxes, and for the
regulatory burden they have; July 3.
We have staff around here that is burned out. Democrats very rarely
finish their programs by the Fourth of July. I dearly love the ranking
chairman, the former chairman of the Committee on Rules. This is no
slight to the chairman. I am going to vote for the rule. I am going to
vote for the resolution. I am going to vote to adjourn. The Republican
Party is at least working on these particular issues. I think we have
gone an hour on this. Quite frankly, I have never seen this happen
before. Now, my last recollection was 1998, Jim Wright, we had all
these appropriation bills done on time. We have set no record ourself.
I am going to vote for the rule, and I am going to vote for the
resolution.
I think as a body we should consider the staff that works here.
Sometimes they go till 3 in the morning, get back at 7, and I think we
should be a little more considerate.
Mr. MOAKLEY. Mr. Speaker, I yield 6 minutes to the gentleman from
North Dakota [Mr. Pomeroy].
Mr. POMEROY. Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentleman for yielding me the
time.
Mr. Speaker, there are times when we are in our office working away
and we hear one of the speeches on the floor coming over that C-SPAN
channel and we are compelled to set the record straight. It is indeed
this feeling of being compelled to set the record straight that brings
me forward to address the rule before us.
While my preceding speaker, my colleagues and friend, the gentleman
from Ohio [Mr. Traficant], acknowledged that it may be unusual to have
all the appropriations bills done by this point in time, I would make
the point that we have never, ever seen such a debacle with the
handling of appropriations bills that we saw in the first year of this
104th Congress.
This House of Representatives has never, ever shut the Federal
Government of this country down because it could not, would not get
work done. That is the sorry legacy of the 104th Congress, and I do not
think it is too much to expect that they would therefore try to get it
done by the time the law says it has to be done, not have to come to
the floor, ever chomping at the bit to climb on some airplane and fly
home and waive the law, waive the completion requirement for getting
the appropriations business done.
In light of the record of this Congress, we have got to wonder, I
think the American taxpayers have to wonder, just what is coming, what
can they expect. Another shutdown when at the end of the fiscal year
the work has yet to be completed?
There are some fact issues that have been egregiously misrepresented.
Those include funding for education and training. In fact, I heard a
preceding speaker allege that any suggestions that reductions in
education funding simply are false statements. Well, let me tell my
colleagues, those statements are the false statements. In fact, overall
education and training budget authority is $60 billion below the
President's plan for 1996 through 2002. The Republican funding cut for
fiscal year 1996 through 2002 is $58 billion in real terms, or 19
percent below the 1995 enacted level. Nineteen percent below the 1995
enacted level. Nineteen percent below the 1995 enacted level, and we
have a suggestion that there has been no reduction in education
funding. Hogwash. There is a record here, and a record some of our
colleagues might want to deny, but the fact of the matter is a record
very firmly established, and the record is there have been cuts to
education.
Medicare, oh, we are going to hear a lot in the next few months about
people's concern about Medicare, but the fact of the matter is there
was a resolution that passed this Congress that cut Medicare $270
billion. Our colleagues say it had to do with fixing the trust fund.
Well, we know what it had to do with. It had to do with funding a $245
billion tax cut, disproportionately benefiting the wealthiest people in
this country. It is a record, a record of the 104th Congress and, if I
was in the majority, not a record to be very proud of.
There are a number of other examples. The reduction in earned income
tax credit, the proposed $17 billion tax increase to working families.
All of these have constituted the record of this Congress.
Mr. DOGGETT. Mr. Speaker, will the gentleman yield?
Mr. POMEROY. I yield to the gentleman from Texas.
Mr. DOGGETT. Mr. Speaker, all of this, with all of those failures,
all those attempts to wreck education, to wreck Medicare, what they
call reconciliation, which was the right name for that bill that they
did that it, all of that and then they have come, have they not, this
year and they are actually increasing the budget deficit with the bills
that they have proposed and not passed, they are going to increase the
budget deficit this year after we had it on the path the last 4 years
coming down every single year under Democratic leadership.
This year they have passed a bill to increase the deficit this year,
then to do it again next year. Maybe that is why they want to go home:
they are not too proud of the increases that they proposed this year
and next year.
Mr. POMEROY. Reclaiming my time, I think the gentleman's point is
well taken.
As we know, they barely passed that budget resolution, and now we
read in the Washington Post today the Speaker has convened a team of
Pentagon officers on loan to do an after-action review, military jargon
for ``how come it was such a close call?'' I could tell the Speaker if
he would just call me. It was a close call because it did not drop the
deficit toward a balanced budget, it raised the deficit. The Speaker is
going to send home Members of his own caucus; the only record they will
have in advancing toward a balanced budget is the deficit going up on
their watch. That is why the Speaker barely passed his budget.
Mr. DOGGETT. If the gentleman will continue to yield, I believe that
the more the American people find out about these failures of this
Congress that some of these folks are going to have an opportunity to
go home for a lot longer than 3 days.
Mr. POMEROY. Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentleman for his question.
Mr. DIAZ-BALART. Mr. Speaker, I yield 5 minutes to the distinguished
gentleman from Louisiana [Mr. Livingston], chairman of the
Appropriations Committee.
(Mr. LIVINGSTON asked and was given permission to revise and extend
his remarks.)
Mr. LIVINGSTON. Mr. Speaker, being one of those Members who just
happened to walk in, having been one of those Members who happened to
be back in his office watching C-SPAN and being compelled to come to
the floor to respond to the last speaker and his comments, I have to
say that I am compelled to set the record straight.
We have just completed six bills in the appropriations cycle. We are
going to complete the seventh tonight, the seventh, I remind the
Members, before the July 4 recess.
And how interesting it is I have in my hand a record of the last five
Congresses. I have to say the gentleman who preceded me might have been
right; in the 103d Congress, both sessions, they did exceed the number
of bills that we have had, but in the 102d, second session, the
Democrats only passed six bills out of the House before the July 4
recess. In the 101st Congress, they missed in both sessions. In the
second session, it was only three. In the first session it was only
one.
Now, they did it all right in the 100th Congress, in the second
session. But in the first session, they only passed six. And my
goodness, in the 99th Congress, if I do recall correctly, the Democrats
controlled not only the 99th but the 98th and the 97th all the way back
for 40 years, and they had had a lot of practice. They had had a lot of
practice, but they only passed one single appropriation bill in the
second session and guess how many in the first session. I am shocked:
zero. Zero appropriation bills before the Fourth of July.
Let us hear about this appalling record. In not only the 103d, the
102d,
[[Page H7046]]
the 101st, all the way back, do my colleagues know that since World War
II, they only balanced the budget about three times, three single
years? And all those other years they spent more than they received,
sometimes as much as $100 billion a year, sometimes as much as $200
billion a year, sometimes as much as 300 or more billion dollars a
year. And they aggregated about $5 trillion worth of debt.
Now, did they do anything about it? Did they sit in their office and
feel compelled by their viewing of C-SPAN to come to the floor and
condemn a record that accumulated $5 trillion worth of debt? Did they
feel compelled to scream out about the $20,000 debt imposed upon every
man, woman, and child in America? No, of course not. They would pass
another program. They would establish another agency. They would create
another department. They would go home for the Fourth of July and say,
``Look what I have done for you with your money. We are going to borrow
more money.'' That is what they accomplished. They accomplished a
record of profligate spending unparalleled by any nation in the world.
What they have accomplished is giving our children a legacy that they
will not be able to repay.
Now, this July 4, we can go home because of the record of the 104th
Congress and we can say we passed a series of rescission bills in the
spring of 1995 that cut $20 billion from what was appropriated by the
previous Democrat Congress. In the fall, yes, the process took a long
time, and I am sorry that it made all of us work so hard, and I am
sorry that the President vetoed three bills, and I am sorry that the
Democrats filibustered the biggest bill, the Labor-Health bill in the
Senate. But the 1996 process saved the American people another $23
billion. We are midway through the 1997 process, and I hope we are
going to save another $15 to $20 billion.
So below what was appropriated by the Democrats in the last Congress
in which they had control, we have saved the American taxpayer some $60
billion. If you look at the budget projected by the President, had he
had that spendthrift Congress, we have saved about $80 billion. That is
a record.
{time} 1900
That is a record on which we can be very, very proud for the Fourth
of July.
Mr. MOAKLEY. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume.
Mr. Speaker, at the beginning of this Congress the Republican
majority claimed that the House was going to consider bills under an
open process.
I would like to point out that 60 percent of the legislation this
session has been considered under a restrictive process.
Mr. Speaker, I include the following extraneous material for the
Record:
FLOOR PROCEDURE IN THE 104TH CONGRESS 1ST SESSION; 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................ None.
Package.
H.R. 5*........................ Unfunded Mandates. H. Res. 38 Restrictive........... N/A.
H.J. Res. 2*................... Balanced Budget... H. Res. 44 Restrictive........... 2R; 4D.
H. Res. 43..................... Committee Hearings H. Res. 43 (OJ) Restrictive........... N/A.
Scheduling.
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.................. N/A.
H.R. 665*...................... Victim Restitution H. Res. 61 Open.................. N/A.
Act of 1995.
H.R. 666*...................... Exclusionary Rule H. Res. 60 Open.................. N/A.
Reform Act of
1995.
H.R. 667*...................... Violent Criminal H. Res. 63 Restrictive........... N/A.
Incarceration Act
of 1995.
H.R. 668*...................... The Criminal Alien H. Res. 69 Open.................. N/A.
Deportation
Improvement Act.
H.R. 728*...................... Local Government H. Res. 79 Restrictive........... N/A.
Law Enforcement
Block Grants.
H.R. 7*........................ National Security H. Res. 83 Restrictive........... N/A.
Revitalization
Act.
H.R. 729*...................... Death Penalty/ N/A Restrictive........... N/A.
Habeas.
S. 2........................... Senate Compliance. N/A Closed................ None.
H.R. 831....................... To Permanently H. Res. 88 Restrictive........... 1D.
Extend the Health
Insurance
Deduction for the
Self-Employed.
H.R. 830*...................... The Paperwork H. Res. 91 Open.................. N/A.
Reduction Act.
H.R. 889....................... Emergency H. Res. 92 Restrictive........... 1D.
Supplemental/
Rescinding
Certain Budget
Authority.
H.R. 450*...................... Regulatory H. Res. 93 Restrictive........... N/A.
Moratorium.
H.R. 1022*..................... Risk Assessment... H. Res. 96 Restrictive........... N/A.
H.R. 926*...................... Regulatory H. Res. 100 Open.................. N/A.
Flexibility.
H.R. 925*...................... Private Property H. Res. 101 Restrictive........... 1D.
Protection Act.
H.R. 1058*..................... Securities H. Res. 105 Restrictive........... 1D.
Litigation Reform
Act.
H.R. 988*...................... The Attorney H. Res. 104 Restrictive........... N/A.
Accountability
Act of 1995.
H.R. 956*...................... Product Liability H. Res. 109 Restrictive........... 8D; 7R.
and Legal Reform
Act.
H.R. 1158...................... Making Emergency H. Res. 115 Restrictive........... N/A.
Supplemental
Appropriations
and Rescissions.
H.J. Res. 73*.................. Term Limits....... H. Res. 116 Restrictive........... 1D; 3R
H.R. 4*........................ Welfare Reform.... H. Res. 119 Restrictive........... 5D; 26R.
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........... 1D.
America Tax
Relief Act of
1995.
H.R. 483....................... Medicare Select H. Res. 130 Restrictive........... 1D.
Extension.
H.R. 655....................... Hydrogen Future H. Res. 136 Open.................. N/A.
Act.
H.R. 1361...................... Coast Guard H. Res. 139 Open.................. N/A.
Authorization.
H.R. 961....................... Clean Water Act... H. Res. 140 Open.................. N/A.
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........... 3D; 1R.
H.R. 1561...................... American Overseas H. Res. 155 Restrictive........... N/A.
Interests Act of
1995.
H.R. 1530...................... National Defense H. Res. 164 Restrictive........... 36R; 18D; 2
Authorization Bipartisan.
Act; FY 1996.
H.R. 1817...................... Military H. Res. 167 Open.................. N/A.
Construction
Appropriations;
FY 1996.
H.R. 1854...................... Legislative Branch H. Res. 169 Restrictive........... 5R; 4D; 2
Appropriations. Bipartisan.
H.R. 1868...................... Foreign Operations H. Res. 170 Open.................. N/A.
Appropriations.
H.R. 1905...................... Energy & Water H. Res. 171 Open.................. N/A.
Appropriations.
H.J. Res. 79................... Constitutional H. Res. 173 Closed................ N/A.
Amendment to
Permit Congress
and States to
Prohibit the
Physical
Desecration of
the American Flag.
H.R. 1944...................... Recissions Bill... H. Res. 175 Restrictive........... N/A.
H.R. 1868 (2nd rule)........... Foreign Operations H. Res. 177 Restrictive........... N/A.
Appropriations.
H.R. 1977 *Rule Defeated*...... Interior H. Res. 185 Open.................. N/A.
Appropriations.
H.R. 1977...................... Interior H. Res. 187 Open.................. N/A.
Appropriations.
H.R. 1976...................... Agriculture H. Res. 188 Open.................. N/A.
Appropriations.
H.R. 1977 (3rd rule)........... Interior H. Res. 189 Restrictive........... N/A.
Appropriations.
H.R. 2020...................... Treasury Postal H. Res. 190 Open.................. N/A.
Appropriations.
H.J. Res. 96................... Disapproving MFN H. Res. 193 Restrictive........... N/A.
for China.
H.R. 2002...................... Transportation H. Res. 194 Open.................. N/A.
Appropriations.
H.R. 70........................ Exports of Alaskan H. Res. 197 Open.................. N/A.
North Slope Oil.
H.R. 2076...................... Commerce, Justice H. Res. 198 Open.................. N/A.
Appropriations.
H.R. 2099...................... VA/HUD H. Res. 201 Open.................. N/A.
Appropriations.
S. 21.......................... Termination of H. Res. 204 Restrictive........... 1D.
U.S. Arms Embargo
on Bosnia.
H.R. 2126...................... Defense H. Res. 205 Open.................. N/A.
Appropriations.
[[Page H7047]]
H.R. 1555...................... Communications Act H. Res. 207 Restrictive........... 2R/3D/3 Bi-
of 1995. partisan.
H.R. 2127...................... Labor/HHS H. Res. 208 Open.................. N/A.
Appropriations
Act.
H.R. 1594...................... Economically H. Res. 215 Open.................. N/A.
Targeted
Investments.
H.R. 1655...................... Intelligence H. Res. 216 Restrictive........... N/A.
Authorization.
H.R. 1162...................... Deficit Reduction H. Res. 218 Open.................. N/A.
Lock Box.
H.R. 1670...................... Federal H. Res. 219 Open.................. N/A.
Acquisition
Reform Act of
1995.
H.R. 1617...................... To Consolidate and H. Res. 222 Open.................. N/A.
Reform Workforce
Development and
Literacy Programs
Act (CAREERS).
H.R. 2274...................... National Highway H. Res. 224 Open.................. N/A.
System
Designation Act
of 1995.
H.R. 927....................... Cuban Liberty and H. Res. 225 Restrictive........... 2R/2D.
Democratic
Solidarity Act of
1995.
H.R. 743....................... The Teamwork for H. Res. 226 Open.................. N/A.
Employees and
Managers Act of
1995.
H.R. 1170...................... 3-Judge Court for H. Res. 227 Open.................. N/A.
Certain
Injunctions.
H.R. 1601...................... International H. Res. 228 Open.................. N/A.
Space Station
Authorization Act
of 1995.
H.J. Res. 108.................. Making Continuing H. Res. 230 Closed................ ..............
Appropriations
for FY 1996.
H.R. 2405...................... Omnibus Civilian H. Res. 234 Open.................. N/A.
Science
Authorization Act
of 1995.
H.R. 2259...................... To Disapprove H. Res. 237 Restrictive........... 1D.
Certain
Sentencing
Guideline
Amendments.
H.R. 2425...................... Medicare H. Res. 238 Restrictive........... 1D.
Preservation Act.
H.R. 2492...................... Legislative Branch H. Res. 239 Restrictive........... N/A.
Appropriations
Bill.
H.R. 2491...................... 7 Year Balanced H. Res. 245 Restrictive........... 1D.
H. Con. Res. 109............... Budget
Reconciliation
Social Security
Earnings Test
Reform.
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........... N/A.
Appropriations FY
1996.
H.J. Res. 115.................. Further Continuing H. Res. 257 Closed................ N/A.
Appropriations
for FY 1996.
H.R. 2586...................... Temporary Increase H. Res. 258 Restrictive........... 5R.
in the Statutory
Debt Limit.
H.R. 2539...................... ICC Termination... H. Res. 259 Open.................. ..............
H.J. Res. 115.................. Further Continuing H. Res. 261 Closed................ N/A.
Appropriations
for FY 1996.
H.R. 2586...................... Temporary Increase H. Res. 262 Closed................ N/A.
in the Statutory
Limit on the
Public Debt.
H. Res. 250.................... House Gift Rule H. Res. 268 Closed................ 2R.
Reform.
H.R. 2564...................... Lobbying H. Res. 269 Open.................. N/A.
Disclosure Act of
1995.
H.R. 2606...................... Prohibition on H. Res. 273 Restrictive........... N/A.
Funds for Bosnia
Deployment.
H.R. 1788...................... Amtrak Reform and H. Res. 289 Open.................. N/A.
Privatization Act
of 1995.
H.R. 1350...................... Maritime Security H. Res. 287 Open.................. N/A.
Act of 1995.
H.R. 2621...................... To Protect Federal H. Res. 293 Closed................ N/A.
Trust Funds.
H.R. 1745...................... Utah Public Lands H. Res. 303 Open.................. N/A.
Management Act of
1995.
H. Res. 304.................... Providing for N/A Closed................ 1D; 2R.
Debate and
Consideration of
Three Measures
Relating to U.S.
Troop Deployments
in Bosnia.
H. Res. 309.................... Revised Budget H. Res. 309 Closed................ N/A.
Resolution.
H.R. 558....................... Texas Low-Level H. Res. 313 Open.................. N/A.
Radioactive Waste
Disposal Compact
Consent Act.
H.R. 2677...................... The National Parks H. Res. 323 Closed................ N/A.
and National
Wildlife Refuge
Systems Freedom
Act of 1995.
PROCEDURE IN THE 104TH CONGRESS 2D SESSION
H.R. 1643...................... To authorize the H. Res. 334 Closed................ N/A.
extension of
nondiscriminatory
treatment (MFN)
to the products
of Bulgaria.
H.J. Res. 134.................. Making continuing H. Res. 336 Closed................ N/A.
H. Con. Res. 131............... appropriations/
establishing
procedures making
the transmission
of the continuing
resolution H.J.
Res. 134.
H.R. 1358...................... Conveyance of H. Res. 338 Closed................ N/A.
National Marine
Fisheries Service
Laboratory at
Gloucester,
Massachusetts.
H.R. 2924...................... Social Security H. Res. 355 Closed................ N/A.
Guarantee Act.
H.R. 2854...................... The Agricultural H. Res. 366 Restrictive........... 5D; 9R; 2
Market Transition Bipartisan.
Program.
H.R. 994....................... Regulatory Sunset H. Res. 368 Open rule; Rule tabled N/A.
& Review Act of
1995.
H.R. 3021...................... To Guarantee the H. Res. 371 Closed rule........... N/A.
Continuing Full
Investment of
Social Security
and Other Federal
Funds in
Obligations of
the United States.
H.R. 3019...................... A Further H. Res. 372 Restrictive........... 2D/2R.
Downpayment
Toward a Balanced
Budget.
H.R. 2703...................... The Effective H. Res. 380 Restrictive........... 6D; 7R; 4
Death Penalty and Bipartisan.
Public Safety Act
of 1996.
H.R. 2202...................... The Immigration H. Res. 384 Restrictive........... 12D; 19R; 1
and National Bipartisan.
Interest Act of
1995.
H.J. Res. 165.................. Making further H. Res. 386 Closed................ N/A.
continuing
appropriations
for FY 1996.
H.R. 125....................... The Gun Crime H. Res. 388 Closed................ N/A.
Enforcement and
Second Amendment
Restoration Act
of 1996.
H.R. 3136...................... The Contract With H. Res. 391 Closed................ N/A.
America
Advancement Act
of 1996.
H.R. 3103...................... The Health H. Res. 392 Restrictive........... N/A.
Coverage
Availability and
Affordability Act
of 1996.
H.J. Res. 159.................. Tax Limitation H. Res. 395 Restrictive........... 1D
Constitutional
Amendment.
H.R. 842....................... Truth in Budgeting H. Res. 396 Open.................. N/A.
Act.
H.R. 2715...................... Paperwork H. Res. 409 Open.................. N/A.
Elimination Act
of 1996.
H.R. 1675...................... National Wildlife H. Res. 410 Open.................. N/A.
Refuge
Improvement Act
of 1995.
H.J. Res. 175.................. Further Continuing H. Res. 411 Closed................ N/A.
Appropriations
for FY 1996.
H.R. 2641...................... United States H. Res. 418 Open.................. N/A.
Marshals Service
Improvement Act
of 1996.
H.R. 2149...................... The Ocean Shipping H. Res. 419 Open.................. N/A.
Reform Act.
H.R. 2974...................... To amend the H. Res. 421 Open.................. N/A.
Violent Crime
Control and Law
Enforcement Act
of 1994 to
provide enhanced
penalties for
crimes against
elderly and child
victims.
H.R. 3120...................... To amend Title 18, H. Res. 422 Open.................. N/A.
United States
Code, with
respect to
witness
retaliation,
witness tampering
and jury
tampering.
H.R. 2406...................... The United States H. Res. 426 Open.................. N/A.
Housing Act of
1996.
H.R. 3322...................... Omnibus Civilian H. Res. 427 Open.................. N/A.
Science
Authorization Act
of 1996.
H.R. 3286...................... The Adoption H. Res. 428 Restrictive........... 1D; 1R.
Promotion and
Stability Act of
1996.
H.R. 3230...................... Defense H. Res. 430 Restrictive........... 41 amends;
Authorization 20D; 17R; 4
Bill FY 1997. bipartisan
H.R. 3415...................... Repeal of the 4.3- H. Res. 436 Closed................ N/A.
Cent Increase in
Transporation
Fuel Taxes.
H.R. 3259...................... Intelligence H. Res. 437 Restrictive........... N/A.
Authorization Act
for FY 1997.
H.R. 3144...................... The Defend America H. Res. 438 Restrictive........... 1D.
Act.
H.R. 3448/H.R. 1227............ The Small Business H. Res. 440 Restrictive........... 2R.
Job Protection
Act of 1996, and
The Employee
Commuting
Flexibility Act
of 1996.
H.R. 3517...................... Military H. Res. 442 Open.................. N/A.
Construction
Appropriations FY
1997.
H.R. 3540...................... Foreign Operations H. Res. 445 Open.................. N/A.
Appropriations FY
1997.
H.R. 3562...................... The Wisconsin H. Res. 446 Restrictive........... N/A.
Works Waiver
Approval Act.
H.R. 2754...................... Shipbuilding Trade H. Res. 448 Restrictive........... 1R.
Agreement Act.
H.R. 3603...................... Agriculture H. Res. 451 Open.................. N/A.
Appropriations FY
1997.
H.R. 3610...................... Defense H. Res. 453 Open.................. N/A.
Appropriations FY
1997.
H.R. 3662...................... Interior H. Res. 455 Open.................. N/A.
Appropriations FY
1997.
H.R. 3666...................... VA/HUD H. Res. 456 Open.................. N/A.
Appropriations.
H.R. 3675...................... Transportation H. Res. 460 Open.................. N/A.
Appropriations FY
1997.
H.J. Res. 182/H.Res 461........ Disapproving MFN H. Res. 463 Closed................ N/A.
Status for the
Peoples Republic
of China.
H. Res. 465.................... Making in order a H. Res 465 Closed................ N/A
Concurrent
Resolution
Providing for the
Adjournment of
the House over
the 4th of July
district work
period.
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
* Contract Bills, 67% restrictive; 33% open. All legislation 1st Session, 53% restrictive; 47% open. *** All
legislation 2d Session, 60% restrictive; 40% open. All legislation 104th Congress, 56% restrictive; 44% 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. MOAKLEY. Mr. Speaker, I yield such time as he may consume to the
gentleman from Wisconsin [Mr. Obey], the ranking minority member of the
Committee on Appropriations.
Mr. OBEY. Mr. Speaker, let me simply say that in the wake of the last
speech, I was not aware that we were
[[Page H7048]]
supposed to be cheerleaders at what sounds like a high school football
game.
Keep going. It is in character.
Mr. Speaker, I hope this does not come out of my time, but I hope you
would educate Members of the House that they have an obligation to not
speak unless they are in the well or at the microphone.
Mr. Speaker, this is a serious problem, and we ought to discuss it in
a rational way. Members may not like what I said when I spoke earlier,
but I think if they review the text of what I said, that I was
exceedingly fair to the leadership of the Committee on Appropriations
on that side of the aisle.
I tried to analyze what the problems were as they existed now. I am
not really interested in debating what happened yesterday. I do not
think the America public is very much interested in that. But I will
simply take 1 minute to note that in spite of everything said by the
gentleman from Louisiana, in 19 of the past 20 years, that terrible
Democratic controlled Congress appropriated less dollars than we were
asked to appropriate by Presidents of either party; we spent some $20
billion less than the Presidents asked us to; we never had a deficit
larger than $74 billion until the Reagan budget passed in 1981, then it
exploded to over $300 billion.
If it were not for the additional debt above that level, which was
accumulated in the 1980's with the passage of the Reagan budgets, our
budgets would be balanced today and everyone knows that if they have
studied the situation.
The issue is not yesterday, it is what are we going to do about
today. Of course, this is going to have to be waived. I understand
that. But the fact is that we face the prospect of having at least four
major appropriations bills vetoed unless we have a different mindset
coming from that side of the aisle.
If the Republicans want to see these appropriations bills passed,
they must reach bipartisan accommodation with people who do not share
every opinion that they think is inviolate. They have to recognize that
in a democracy it is essential to make concessions, at least over small
things, in order to get people with differing views together.
We are supposed to find common ground. We are not supposed to do what
they did last night, when, after their own committee leadership tried
to put together a bipartisan compromise, they walked away from it. Now,
I do not know what the reasons were, but when the gentleman from Ohio
[Mr. Stokes] and the gentleman from California [Mr. Lewis] worked
yesterday trying to reach a bipartisan accommodation, the hard-heads in
their caucus said, ``No, they did not want it''.
That is the kind of conduct the country has come to expect from the
Republicans, but it is not the kind of conduct we can afford if these
appropriation bills are going to pass, if they are going to be signed,
and if we are going to wind up not having a repeat of the disgraceful
performance of last year when the Government was shut down twice.
So I would simply urge Members to quit shouting like they were
attending a high school cheerleading session, grow up, recognize their
responsibility, try to work in a bipartisan way and get those bills
passed; and to the gentleman from Arizona--every time somebody says
something you don't like, you open your mouth and you start shouting
from your seat. . . .
Parliamentary Inquiry
Mr. HAYWORTH. Mr. Speaker, parliamentary inquiry.
The SPEAKER pro tempore (Mr. LaHood). The gentleman will state it.
Mr. HAYWORTH. Mr. Speaker, is it within this Member's domain to ask
those words to be taken down? It is a personal attack and grossly
unfair, and I would ask that those words be taken down in this House.
The SPEAKER pro tempore. Does the gentleman from Arizona demand that
the words be taken down?
Mr. HAYWORTH. Mr. Speaker, with all due respect to the sanctity of
this House, I demand those words be taken down.
The SPEAKER pro tempore. The Clerk will report the words.
{time} 1915
parliamentary inquiry
Mr. GEJDENSON. Mr. Speaker, I have parliamentary inquiry.
The SPEAKER pro tempore (Mr. LaHood). The gentleman will state it.
Mr. GEJDENSON. Mr. Speaker, I guess my question goes to the matter of
what are the House precedents as far as a Member who is speaking and
when there are Members in the Chamber who are acting disrespectful
towards that Member? What is the proper procedure for a Member to take?
The SPEAKER pro tempore. The Chair will ask the gentleman to suspend
until a ruling is made on the words taken down. Then the Chair will
address the gentleman's question.
For what purpose does the gentleman from Wisconsin [Mr. Obey] rise?
Mr. OBEY. Mr. Speaker, with the understanding that the Chair will
admonish Members not to interrupt Members who are speaking, I ask
unanimous consent to withdraw the last sentence.
The SPEAKER pro tempore. Is there objection to the request of the
gentleman from Wisconsin?
Mr. DeLAY. Mr. Speaker, reserving the right to object, I hope I do
not have to object. I hope that this interlude has calmed down some of
the heat that has been on the floor, and I remind Members that if we
can get through this, maybe we can finish our business tonight. I rise
under my reservation to find out if the gentleman intends to apologize
to the gentleman from Arizona?
Mr. OBEY. Mr. Speaker, will the gentleman yield?
Mr. DeLAY. I yield to the gentleman from Wisconsin.
Mr. OBEY. Mr. Speaker, as I said, I would, as I have informed the
Speaker, I would be very happy to apologize to the gentleman for
calling him impolite, if the gentleman would have apologized to me for
interrupting me while I was speaking. He declined to do that.
Mr. DeLAY. Mr. Speaker, I object.
The SPEAKER pro tempore. The Clerk will report the words objected to.
The Clerk read as follows:
And to the gentleman from Arizona, every time somebody says
something you don't like, you open your mouth and you start
shouting from your seat. You are one of the most impolite
Members I have ever seen in my service in this House.
The SPEAKER pro tempore. In the opinion of the Chair, the last
sentence of the gentleman from Wisconsin constitutes a personality in
violation of clause 1 of rule XIV.
Without objection, the last sentence uttered will be stricken from
the Record. There was no objection.
The SPEAKER pro tempore. Without objection, the gentleman from
Wisconsin may proceed in order.
Mr. DeLAY. Reserving the right to object, Mr. Speaker, I ask once
again of the gentleman that in order to bring comity to this floor, and
this is a very serious matter and we all understand how serious this
matter is, normally under the precedents of the House, if a gentleman's
words have been found to be out of order, of the regular order of this
House and the Chair has ruled that the gentleman's words were out of
order, under comity of the House the gentleman should apologize.
{time} 1930
Under my reservation, Mr. Speaker, I would be glad to yield to the
gentleman from Wisconsin for that apology.
Mr. OBEY. Mr. Speaker, will the gentleman yield?
Mr. DeLAY. I yield to the gentleman from Wisconsin.
Mr. OBEY. Mr. Speaker, as I said, I would be very happy to apologize
to the gentleman from Arizona [Mr. Hayworth] for calling him impolite
if he would apologize for being impolite to me.
Mr. DeLAY. Mr. Speaker, I object.
The SPEAKER pro tempore (Mr. LaHood). Objection is heard.
parliamentary inquiries
Mr. VOLKMER. Mr. Speaker, I have a parliamentary inquiry.
The SPEAKER pro tempore. The gentleman from Missouri will state his
parliamentary inquiry.
Mr. VOLKMER. Mr. Speaker, what are the actions that a Member who has
the floor and is speaking on the floor, and other Members speak up to
interrupt him repeatedly, and the Chair takes no action against those
Members speaking; what actions can the Member who has the floor then
take under the ruling? Absolutely none; I will answer the question
under the ruling; so, therefore, we can do the same thing.
[[Page H7049]]
The SPEAKER pro tempore. If a point of order is made, the Chair would
rule on it, and the Chair did rule on it, and the Chair has tried to
maintain decorum and comity throughout for those Members who were in
the Chamber.
During the debate of this resolution comity has been maintained.
The Chair recognizes the gentleman from Connecticut.
Mr. GEJDENSON. Mr. Speaker, I have a parliamentary inquiry.
The gentleman will state his parliamentary inquiry.
Mr. GEJDENSON. Mr. Speaker, I would like to commend the Speaker pro
tempore (Mr. LaHood) because I think the gentleman did make a noble
effort throughout, and the many times that he has held the Chair he has
made a noble effort in trying to maintain comity on the floor.
But there is a serious question at hand here, and my question is
this: that if a Member is speaking on the floor, and another Member is
acting in a way that is disruptive----
The SPEAKER pro tempore. The gentleman from Connecticut is making a
statement.
Mr. GEJDENSON. The parliamentary inquiry is: What actions can the
House take against an individual, what are the parliamentary avenues
available to a speaker when an individual, either verbally or through
motions, is disrupting his time in speaking on the floor; because, Mr.
Speaker, where we find ourselves is in the situation that when an
individual tries to take his time on the floor there is often
conversation. But this went beyond conversation, and I just need to
know for future parliamentary situations what avenues an individual
ought to take if a Member is sitting in the first row trying to, by
motions or statements, disrupt the speaker.
The SPEAKER pro tempore. The Chair will take the initiative to
maintain order in the Chamber when Members are speaking.
Mr. GEJDENSON. So, it is my conclusion then that the proper course
would be to stop speaking; that would not shorten one's time; and then
ask the Chair to establish order?
The SPEAKER pro tempore. The Chair would enlist the assistance of all
Members in maintaining the spirit of mutual courtesy and comity that
properly dignifies the proceedings of the House. Members who are under
recognition should not be disrupted by other Members.
Mr. ROBERTS. Mr. Speaker, I have a parliamentary inquiry.
The SPEAKER pro tempore. The gentleman from Kansas will state his
parliamentary inquiry.
Mr. ROBERTS. Mr. Speaker, in this case would it not be appropriate
for the Chair to rule to invoke paragraph 365, or in similar instances
of Jefferson's Manual, in which it is stated:
Nevertheless if a Member finds that it is not the
inclination of the House to hear him and that by conversation
or any other noise they endeavor to drown his voice, it is
his most prudent way to submit to the pleasure of the House
and sit down, for it scarcely ever happens that they are
guilty of this piece of ill manners without sufficient reason
or inattention to a Member who says anything worth their
hearing.
Would that not apply in this particular instance?
The SPEAKER pro tempore. The Chair will not rule on that.
(By unanimous consent, Mr. Hyde was allowed to speak out of order.)
apologies suggested
Mr. HYDE. Mr. Speaker, I was seated with the gentleman from Arizona
[Mr. Hayworth] when this incident occurred, and there was provocation.
A high-spirited gentleman from Arizona gets caught up in the heat of
the moment, and believe me there was heat. On the other hand, the
gentleman from Wisconsin [Mr. Obey] is essential if we are going to do
the transportation bill this evening. He is the ranking member on the
Committee on Appropriations. Both are reluctant to apologize to each
other. I would.
Please. I would suggest that both gentlemen, both gentlemen, express
regret that this incident happened, and then we can get on with the
business of the evening.
(By unanimous consent, Mr. Hayworth was allowed to speak out of
order.)
calling for apology and resumption of the business of the house
Mr. HAYWORTH. Mr. Speaker, because I have the utmost respect for my
colleague from Illinois [Mr. Hyde], although I might have a slightly
different interpretation of the events as he portrayed them in front of
this body, and because I realize that there is a schedule to be kept
and that Members have many obligations, and taking into account the
sensitivities of some other Members, I would be happy to say now that I
am certainly prepared to move ahead this evening, and to those who
misinterpret my actions as somehow being disrespectful, when, in fact,
of course, we have the utmost of respect for differences of opinion.
and differences in styles of speaking, and different personalities, and
different points of view in this Chamber, I would say that I regret the
interpretation of the incident.
I still lament the words of my colleague from Wisconsin [Mr. Obey]. I
would hope he would apologize for those words and that we can move
along to complete the people's business in this House, for the people's
business should supersede any personalities, personal ambitions, or
personal affronts.
(By unanimous consent, Mr. Obey was allowed to speak out of order.)
apologies
Mr. OBEY. Mr. Speaker, let me say that, like the gentleman from
Arizona [Mr. Hayworth], I regret the incident that just occurred, and I
will take the gentleman's comments as an apology.
I would likewise extend an apology to the gentleman for the comments
which he found troublesome.
Mr. DeLAY. Mr. Speaker, I ask unanimous consent that the gentleman
from Wisconsin [Mr. Obey] be allowed to proceed in regular order.
The SPEAKER pro tempore. Is there objection to the request of the
gentleman from Texas?
There was no objection.
The SPEAKER pro tempore. The Chair would advise Members that the
gentleman from Florida [Mr. Diaz-Balart] has 3 minutes remaining on the
debate on the rule, and the gentleman from Florida is recognized.
Mr. DIAZ-BALART. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may
consume.
Mr. Speaker, we have before us House Resolution 465. We next week
will be able to reflect together with our constituents on how to move
forward in the perfection, the implementation of the principles put
forth by our Founding Fathers over 200 years ago that form the basis of
our limited representative government, and we are ready this evening to
get to work on another appropriations bill.
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. The question is on the resolution.
The question was taken; and the Speaker pro tempore announced that
the ayes appeared to have it.
Mr. MOAKLEY. Mr. Speaker, I object to the vote on the ground that a
quorum is not present and make the point of order that a quorum is not
present.
The SPEAKER pro tempore. Evidently a quorum is not present.
The Sergeant at Arms will notify absent Members.
The vote was taken by electronic device, and there were--yeas 248,
nays 166, not voting 19, as follows:
[Roll No 286]
YEAS--248
Allard
Archer
Armey
Bachus
Baesler
Baker (CA)
Baker (LA)
Ballenger
Barr
Barrett (NE)
Barrett (WI)
Bartlett
Barton
Bass
Bateman
Beilenson
Bereuter
Berman
Bevill
Bilbray
Bilirakis
Bliley
Blute
Boehlert
Boehner
Bonilla
Bono
Boucher
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
Deal
DeFazio
DeLay
Diaz-Balart
Dickey
Dooley
Doolittle
Dornan
Doyle
Dreier
Duncan
Dunn
Durbin
Ehlers
English
Ensign
Everett
Ewing
Fawell
Fields (TX)
Flanagan
Foley
Forbes
Fowler
Fox
Franks (CT)
Franks (NJ)
Frelinghuysen
Frisa
Funderburk
[[Page H7050]]
Gallegly
Ganske
Gekas
Gilchrest
Gillmor
Gilman
Goodlatte
Goodling
Gordon
Goss
Graham
Greene (UT)
Gunderson
Gutierrez
Gutknecht
Hall (TX)
Hancock
Hansen
Hastert
Hastings (WA)
Hayes
Hayworth
Hefley
Heineman
Herger
Hilleary
Hobson
Hoekstra
Hoke
Horn
Hostettler
Houghton
Hunter
Hutchinson
Hyde
Inglis
Istook
Johnson (CT)
Johnson, Sam
Jones
Kaptur
Kasich
Kelly
Kim
King
Kingston
Kleczka
Klug
Knollenberg
Kolbe
LaHood
Largent
Latham
LaTourette
Laughlin
Lazio
Leach
Lewis (CA)
Lewis (KY)
Lightfoot
Linder
Lipinski
Livingston
LoBiondo
Longley
Lucas
Manzullo
Martini
McCollum
McCrery
McHugh
McInnis
McIntosh
McKeon
Metcalf
Meyers
Mica
Miller (FL)
Molinari
Montgomery
Moorhead
Morella
Murtha
Myers
Myrick
Nethercutt
Neumann
Ney
Norwood
Nussle
Obey
Packard
Parker
Paxon
Petri
Pickett
Pombo
Porter
Portman
Pryce
Quillen
Quinn
Radanovich
Ramstad
Regula
Riggs
Roberts
Rogers
Rohrabacher
Ros-Lehtinen
Roth
Roukema
Royce
Salmon
Sanford
Saxton
Scarborough
Schaefer
Schiff
Seastrand
Sensenbrenner
Shadegg
Shaw
Shays
Shuster
Sisisky
Skeen
Smith (MI)
Smith (NJ)
Smith (WA)
Solomon
Souder
Spence
Stearns
Stump
Talent
Tate
Tauzin
Taylor (NC)
Thomas
Thornberry
Tiahrt
Torkildsen
Traficant
Upton
Vucanovich
Walker
Walsh
Wamp
Watts (OK)
Weldon (FL)
Weller
White
Wicker
Wilson
Wolf
Young (AK)
Young (FL)
Zeliff
Zimmer
NAYS--166
Abercrombie
Andrews
Baldacci
Barcia
Becerra
Bentsen
Bishop
Blumenauer
Bonior
Borski
Browder
Brown (CA)
Brown (FL)
Brown (OH)
Bryant (TX)
Cardin
Chapman
Clay
Clayton
Clement
Clyburn
Coleman
Collins (IL)
Collins (MI)
Condit
Conyers
Costello
Coyne
Cramer
Cummings
Danner
de la Garza
DeLauro
Dellums
Deutsch
Dicks
Dingell
Dixon
Doggett
Edwards
Engel
Eshoo
Evans
Farr
Fattah
Fazio
Fields (LA)
Filner
Foglietta
Ford
Frank (MA)
Frost
Furse
Gejdenson
Gephardt
Geren
Gonzalez
Green (TX)
Hamilton
Harman
Hastings (FL)
Hefner
Hilliard
Hinchey
Holden
Hoyer
Jackson (IL)
Jackson-Lee (TX)
Jefferson
Johnson (SD)
Johnson, E. B.
Johnston
Kanjorski
Kennedy (MA)
Kennedy (RI)
Kennelly
Kildee
Klink
LaFalce
Lantos
Levin
Lewis (GA)
Lofgren
Lowey
Luther
Maloney
Manton
Markey
Martinez
Mascara
Matsui
McCarthy
McDermott
McHale
McKinney
McNulty
Meehan
Meek
Menendez
Millender-McDonald
Miller (CA)
Minge
Mink
Moakley
Mollohan
Moran
Nadler
Neal
Oberstar
Olver
Ortiz
Orton
Owens
Pallone
Pastor
Payne (NJ)
Payne (VA)
Pelosi
Peterson (MN)
Pomeroy
Poshard
Rahall
Rangel
Reed
Richardson
Rivers
Roemer
Rose
Roybal-Allard
Rush
Sabo
Sanders
Sawyer
Schroeder
Schumer
Scott
Serrano
Skaggs
Skelton
Slaughter
Spratt
Stark
Stenholm
Stokes
Studds
Stupak
Tanner
Taylor (MS)
Tejeda
Thompson
Thornton
Thurman
Torres
Velazquez
Vento
Visclosky
Volkmer
Ward
Waters
Watt (NC)
Waxman
Williams
Wise
Woolsey
Wynn
Yates
NOT VOTING--19
Ackerman
Brewster
Davis
Ehrlich
Flake
Gibbons
Greenwood
Hall (OH)
Jacobs
Lincoln
McDade
Oxley
Peterson (FL)
Smith (TX)
Stockman
Torricelli
Towns
Weldon (PA)
Whitfield
{time} 1959
Mr. GUTIERREZ changed his vote from ``nay'' to ``yea.''
So the resolution was agreed to.
A motion to reconsider is laid upon the table.
____________________