[Congressional Record Volume 142, Number 101 (Wednesday, July 10, 1996)]
[House]
[Pages H7196-H7206]
From the Congressional Record Online through the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
LEGISLATIVE BRANCH APPROPRIATIONS ACT, 1997
The Committee resumed its sitting.
The CHAIRMAN. It is now in order to consider amendment No. 8 printed
in House Report 104-663.
AMENDMENT OFFERED BY MR. CASTLE
Mr. CASTLE. Mr. Chairman, I offer amendment No. 8.
The CHAIRMAN. The Clerk will designate the amendment.
The text of the amendment is as follows:
Amendment No. 8 offered by Mr. Castle: Page 35, after line
22, insert the following new section.
Sec. 310. (a) Each mass mailing sent by a Member of the
House of Representatives shall bear in a prominent place on
its face, or on the envelope or outside cover or wrapper in
which the mail matter is sent, the following notice: ``THIS
MAILING WAS PREPARED, PUBLISHED, AND MAILED AT TAXPAYER
EXPENSE.'', or a notice to the same effect in words which may
be prescribed under subsection (c). The notice shall be
printed in a type size not smaller than 7-point.
(b)(1) There shall be published in the itemized report of
disbursements of the House of Representatives as required by
law, a summary tabulation setting forth, for the office of
each Member of the House of Representatives, the total number
of pieces of mass mail mailed during the period involved and
the total cost of those mass mailings.
(2) Each such tabulation shall also include--
(A) the total cost (as referred to in paragraph (1))
divided by the number (as determined by the Postmaster
General) of addresses (other than business possible delivery
stops) in the Congressional district from which the Member
was elected (as such addresses are described in section
3210(d)(7)(B) of title 39, United States Code); and
(B) the total number of pieces of mass mail (as referred to
in paragraph (1)) divided by the number (as determined by the
Postmaster General) of addresses (other than business
possible delivery stops) in the Congressional district from
which the Member was elected (as such addresses are described
in section 3210(d)(7)(B) of title 39, United States Code).
(c) The Committee on House Oversight shall prescribe such
rules and regulations and shall take such other action as the
Committee considers necessary and proper for Members to
conform to the provisions of this subsection and applicable
rules and regulations.
(d) For purposes of this section--
(1) the term ``Member of the House of Representatives''
means a Representative in, or a Delegate or Resident
Commissioner to, the Congress; and
(2) the term ``mass mailing'' has the meaning given such
term by section 3210(a)(6)(E) of title 39, United States
Code.
The CHAIRMAN. Pursuant to the House Resolution 473, the gentleman
from Delaware [Mr. Castle] and a Member opposed will each control 10
minutes.
The Chair recognizes the gentleman from Delaware [Mr. Castle].
Mr. CASTLE. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself such time as I may consume.
Mr. Chairman, I want to start my congratulating the chairman for what
I think has been an excellent job of trimming the legislative
appropriations, and particularly in the area that I am going to talk
about, which is the taxpayer funding of franked mail.
The fiscal year 1997 level of funding will be 40 percent lower than
the 1996 level of funding. That is an impressive reduction. I do not
even know if the chairman is aware of the reductions over the course of
years, but starting in the year I was first elected to this body,
before I came here in 1992, it was $59 million. In 1993 it went to
$47,711,000. In 1994 it went to $40 million, in 1995 to $31 million, in
1996 it went up to $35,630,000, and this year is an appropriation of
$20 million, so it really is an extraordinary job that the chairman has
done and that the Committee on House Oversight has done in addressing
this particular situation.
In recognition of that, I do not intend, as I have in the past, to
introduce an amendment to try to further reduce that funding. I think
there are a couple of areas for which there is still room for
improvement. Too often the franking privilege is not treated as a
privilege and is abused. For example, the volume of outgoing franked
mail vastly outpaces the volume of incoming mail.
In 1995, the House sent out four times more mail than it received. If
the House had responded only to letters it received, franked mail costs
would have been only $12.4 million, saving $18.6 million or 60 percent
from actual mail costs. Also, use of the frank increases cyclically
during every election year. During the 102d Congress, the House spent
$31 million in 1991 and $54 million in 1992, and during the 103d
Congress, $24 million in 1993, and $42 million in 1994.
{time} 1500
The 104th Congress again has addressed and narrowed this gap in total
spending, but the irresistible temptation for individual Members facing
tough reelection campaigns to use their franking perk extensively in
election years remains.
I think Members have a legitimate need to respond to the increasing
concerns of their constituents and the franking privilege does
facilitate this. I think the public understands this and would support
that use of taxpayer dollars.
Unsolicited mass mail from Members, however, I think fails into a
different category. I believe that most Americans do not want to
receive all the unsolicited mail they get from Congress, particularly
if they are aware of the fact that they as taxpayers pay for it
themselves. Some Members here, I am certain, would disagree and would
argue that the newsletter contains valuable and useful information. I
am not trying to prevent that from being used. But I think we should
give the public the information it needs to make the determination.
This is what the amendment, the taxpayer's right to know amendment,
will do.
It has two components, both of which are based on procedures which
the Senate already follows. The first component would require all mass
mailings to contain the disclaimer, ``This mailing was prepared,
published, and mailed at taxpayer expense.'' This will encourage
Members to be more judicious in the mass mailing they send to their
constituents, and it is entirely consistent with this Congress's
attempt to let sunshine disinfect the policy process.
The second part of the amendment would require the CAO's quarterly
Statement of Disbursements to publish to total number of pieces of mass
mail mailed during the period involved and the total cost of those mass
mailings on a per-residential-address basis. Currently there is no way
for the public to get information about the amount Members spend on
unsolicited mass mailings versus constituent response mail. My
amendment will allow this comparison to take place and I think the
public has a right to know how their tax dollars are being spent.
The bottom line here is that this simple amendment will provide
information to taxpayers about franked mass mail. It does not ban mass
mailings or change the definition from current law. It simply requires
public disclosure about the use of frank for mass mail.
I urge Members to pass this amendment.
[[Page H7197]]
Mr. THOMAS. Mr. Chairman, will the gentleman yield?
Mr. CASTLE. I yield to the gentleman from California.
Mr. THOMAS. Mr. Chairman, I thank the gentleman for yielding. I want
to compliment the gentleman for his amendment.
His amendment follows a long line of positive amendments offered on
both sides of the aisle, and as a matter of fact originally in a
bipartisan effort by the gentleman from California [Mr. Fazio] and the
then gentleman, still gentleman, but member of the House from
Minnesota, Mr. Frenzel, to begin to separate the cost of franked mail
from the general fund category. We have not yet reached the Senate
stage. The gentleman from Delaware indicated that it puts us in the
same position as the Senate, and I know he is aware that the Senate
actually separates the unsolicited mass mail from the other franked
mail. We do not do that. But what the gentleman's amendment does is in
essence do it in the report so that people can see not only the amount
but the number of addresses to which the franked mail has been sent.
The gentleman alluded to the way in which this Congress continues to
make changes. He of course is aware that at the beginning of the 104th
Congress we cut franked mail by yet another one-third of the total
amount and that we moved up the statutorily required 60-day ban to a
voluntary 90-day ban.
Once again I want to compliment the gentleman. His addition of a
required statement that it is at taxpayer expense is a good, positive
notifier of where the money is coming from. It also perhaps might be
somewhat of a conscience conditioner in terms of whether you mail it
out or not, and by giving it a separate report, we do move closer to
the Senate, separating the response mail from the unsolicited mass
mailing. I compliment the gentleman on his amendment.
Mr. CASTLE. Mr. Chairman, reclaiming my time, I would like to thank
the head of the Committee on House Oversight for what I think is an
extraordinary job of dealing with this issue of franked mail. I think
we really have in a bipartisan way responsible addressed this
particular issue in this Congress and he is absolutely right on some of
the numbers. We are just trying to refine this at the end.
Mr. PACKARD. Mr. Chairman, will the gentleman yield?
Mr. CASTLE. I yield to the gentleman from California.
Mr. PACKARD. I appreciate the gentleman yielding.
Mr. Chairman, I certainly appreciate this amendment and I am very
much grateful that the gentleman has worked it out to the satisfaction
of the authorizing committee chairman, Mr. Thomas. With that agreement,
I will be more than pleased to accept the amendment.
Mr. THORNTON. Mr. Chairman, will the gentleman yield?
Mr. CASTLE. I yield to the gentleman from Arkansas.
Mr. THORNTON. Mr. Chairman, the minority has no objection to the
amendment. I congratulate the gentleman on working it out and bringing
it to the floor.
Mr. CASTLE. I thank the gentleman.
Mr. Chairman, I yield back the balance of my time.
The CHAIRMAN. The question is on the amendment offered by the
gentleman from Delaware [Mr. Castle].
The amendment was agreed to.
The CHAIRMAN. It is now in order to consider amendment No. 1 printed
in House Report 104-663.
amendment offered by mr. fazio of california
Mr. FAZIO of California. Mr. Chairman, I offer an amendment.
The CHAIRMAN. The Clerk will designate the amendment.
The text of the amendment is as follows:
Amendment No. 1 offered by Mr. Fazio of California: Page 3,
after line 3, insert the following caption: ``(including
transfer of funds)''.
Page 3, line 6, insert before the period at the end the
following: ; and, in addition, $4,000,000, which shall be
derived by transfer from the amount provided in this Act for
``Office of the Chief Administrative Officer'' under the
heading ``Salaries, officers and employees'' and shall be
available for obligation only by members for initiatives to
promote the increased use of computers and other electronic
technologies funded by this Act to carry out legislative
activities.
The CHAIRMAN. Pursuant to House Resolution 473, the gentleman from
California [Mr. Fazio] and a Member opposed each will control 15
minutes.
Mr. PACKARD. Mr. Chairman, I seek the time in opposition.
The CHAIRMAN. The gentleman from California [Mr. Packard] will be
recognized for 15 minutes in opposition.
The Chair recognizes the gentleman from California [Mr. Fazio].
Mr. FAZIO of California. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself such time as I
may consume.
Mr. Chairman, the committee report says that $211 million is provided
in this bill for computer and telecommunications investments and that
there is quote, ``an inexorable movement toward CyberCongress.'' But,
quite simply, we are not yet there. My amendment would be a referendum
on whether the CAO and HIR are giving us what we pay for.
We have provided generous resources to the Chief Administrative
Officer and to our computer agency over the past 2 years, $16.5 million
in this bill for operating expenses, $8.2 million for
telecommunications projects, a doubling over last year. That does not
count the $6 million in reimbursements and the $11.7 million in
chargebacks that our offices pay for services to the HIR agency.
With Chairman Packard, I approved a $20.5 million reprogramming at
the end of the fiscal year 1995 for telecommunications and computer
investments.
The CAO and HIR have requested $85 million over the next 5 years for
computer and telecommunications investment. But, notwithstanding the
New York Times, which wrote a glowing piece on the CAO, there is
evidence that our computer support is falling short.
First of all, I, along with Vern Ehlers, have been part of an effort
to identify a new House-wide messaging system, and we are making steady
if slow progress on that project. But, in the meantime, our existing
House e-mail has been so unreliable and so slow that many users have
just abandoned it for daily use.
The Financial Management System was finally switched over to a new
system on June 4, 5 months later than a House Oversight deadline and 8
months later than the CAO had originally promised the Members. Your
June district office rent payments, which are supposed to be sent in in
a timely way so that your landlords in your districts can receive them
on the 1st day of each month, still have not left the Finance Office,
and I think it is, if I am correct, the 10th of July. This is frankly
unprecedented. It has never happened before.
The heralded Office 2000 project, whose purpose is to automate some
of the day-to-day functions in our offices, will not have a single
operational function available prior to next year.
At the time of our hearings, HIR was 20 percent understaffed, and the
CAO admitted that the terminations, pay cuts, and reassignments of his
reorganization played a role. Our offices have felt that lack of
support every day.
In addition, the office accounting software provided to your offices
by HIR in January contained numerous bugs. Because of the CAO's
personnel procedures, it took HIR over 7 months to hire a full-time
receptionist, and it took over 6 months to hire a security officer, at
a time when the inspector general told us our computer systems were
susceptible to outside entry.
In short, I have to wonder if we are getting what we pay for. The CAO
and HIR have received considerable credit for so-called CyberCongress
initiatives. But while the CAO talks a good game about CyberCongress
and desk top video conferencing and the like, I believe the performance
in tasks affecting Members' offices directly has not lived up to the
billing.
We are all getting our ``free'' computers, in quotes, but HIR has
nothing new to show us, which was the whole point of the mass computer
buy in the first place. The lack of progress is not because of any lack
of resources, and the CAO is not shy about asking for more. The CAO's
request this year was for a 32-percent overall increase, primarily for
computers and telecommunications. The Committee on Appropriations has
provided generous resources, including, I might add, the $20.5 million
I mentioned earlier, yet the CAO cannot seem to invest it. Another $8
[[Page H7198]]
million in unobligated balances is already being predicted for the
current fiscal year, 1996.
My amendment would take $4 million out of the fiscal year 1997 funds
in the bill, half of HIR's increase for telecommunications--which is,
by the way, a doubling of last year's amount--and allow the use of such
funds only if approved by Members, and only for technology already
funded in this bill. My amendment is the ultimate in TQM, total quality
management, and customer satisfaction that the CAO is so publicly
embracing.
It is simple. If you think the CAO is spending money well and wisely,
vote against my amendment. If you think your office can do a better
job, then vote for my amendment.
I think we can send the CAO an important message: that we demand
results for the money we hand out, and results that will help us serve
our constituents now, as well as in the future.
Mr. Chairman, I would like to bring to the Members' attention another
related matter, related in the sense that it is directly a policy which
we will all be adhering to as part of an Internet policy agreement
which has largely been forged within the Committee on House Oversight.
The amendment I had intended to offer to the body as a whole concerns
an Internet policy set by that committee on the 23d of May. The
amendment would have prevented funds from being spent to implement this
policy.
Some would say, leave this to the Oversight Committee. But I believe
it is a policy of sufficient importance that it needs to be reevaluated
as we consider funding for House operations, as we are in the amendment
I have offered.
The policy was originally negotiated by the majority and minority
staff in good faith, and there are good reasons for Web site policy and
important elements to the policy. For example, it entitles minorities
and subcommittees to a Web page site; it ensures that the maintenance
of Web page sites is done behind an official fire wall for security
purposes; and it ensures that House Web page sites are
clearly identified. The committee's jurisdiction, I believe, is
appropriate and I support it.
The problem came literally the morning of the hearing when we thought
we had negotiated a policy successfully with the committee staff on
both sides of the aisle. It was overruled. After a partisan debate, the
Republicans ignored our objections and we were voted down, and so I
went to the Committee on Appropriations seeking to bring the matter to
the attention of the floor.
I withdrew the amendment in the full committee after Chairman
Livingston agreed to help facilitate some sort of settlement on a new
leadership Internet policy and, failing that, to support floor
consideration of my amendment under this rule.
That resulted, of course, in further Oversight Committee staff
discussions and a clarification of one of the two purposes of my
amendment. That clarification was that the majority determined that it
never intended to prevent a process called bookmarking, which allows
people to go back on a regular basis to an item which they wish to
reference on a regular basis at the Web site, part of the Internet.
However, the main issue remains unresolved. The policy as issued
prevents access to a Democratic Web page site, or I should say minority
web page site, unless a user first goes to the majority or, in this
case, the Republican site first. Our constituents will still have to
troll through screens of majority information to even discover that the
minority, in this case, the Democrats, have a Web site.
In fact, my colleague and friend from California, Mr. Thomas, made it
clear at the hearing that if a committee chair did not want a minority
Web page at all, he could just refuse to have a Web page for the
majority as well.
To add insult to injury, the HIR has been instructed to make the
technical changes that prevent users who may have stumbled across the
site from bookmarking it, though, as I mentioned earlier, the majority
claims that it never intended to prevent that bookmarking process from
being available to anyone who browses the Internet.
We are talking about access to information, electronic information,
but just information in a different form; information, like any others,
that ought to flow freely in this process, certainly as part of an
institution which is fundamental to our form of democracy. It is, pure
and simple, a restriction on access to information.
The effect of this policy is that users of the Internet and the World
Wide Web, our constituents, cannot readily get to the information they
want. It is ironic to me that the GOP which has gotten so much credit
for the CyberCongress would make the first policy about Web pages a
restrictive one. This is an important matter and I believe it is one we
should elevate to floor consideration no matter what happens on my
amendment today. This gives us an opportunity to discuss what I think
is a bad policy, even though my amendment will not go directly to the
point I am concerned about as I discuss the other amendment I had hoped
to offer today.
{time} 1515
It flies in the face, this policy, of an open Congress. It perverts
the whole idea behind the free flow of electronic information that is
inherent in the idea behind the Internet and the World Wide Web.
Mr. Chairman, I would like to include a number of communications,
particularly one from the American Library Association that agrees that
access to congressional information should not be a partisan issue.
The information referred to follows:
American Library Association,
Washington, DC, July 9, 1996.
Hon. Vic Fazio,
Rayburn House Office Building,
Washington, DC.
Dear Mr. Fazio: In response to your inquiry, the American
Library Association agrees that access to Congressional
information should not be a partisan issue. Recent press
reports have described a controversy about access to
Congressional committee pages on the World Wide Web. For the
past 18 months, citizens have been able to access majority
Web pages from a central menu. Under a recently adopted
policy, the House of Representatives Committee Office Web
Services menu lists Web pages of only the committee majority
with access to the minority's page only through the
majority's page.
ALA is concerned about this policy and the effect it would
have on an informed electorate. This policy would concern us
no matter which party was in the majority during any given
Congress.
ALA reaffirms its long-standing conviction that open
government is vital to a democracy. Of the many issues raised
by this policy, I would like to highlight two:
There should be equal and ready access to data collected,
compiled, produced, and published in any format by the
government of the United States. In the interest of equity,
the majority and minority of House committees should have
equal access at the same level to the World Wide Web, a
dynamic means of communicating with the American electorate;
and
The free flow of information between Congress and the
American people should be encouraged. Majority and minority
viewpoints should be available without either one being
dependent on the other.
The American Library Association is a nonprofit educational
organization of 58,000 librarians, library trustees, and
other friends of libraries dedicated to promoting the public
interest in a free and open information society.
Sincerely,
Carol C. Henderson,
Executive Director,
ALA Washington Office.
____
Muckraker
(By Brock N. Meeks)
thomas builds a one-way web
In the House of Representatives, all Web sites are created
equal. But the Republicans couldn't stomach that thought, so
they rewrote the rules.
All seemed fair in the wake of amicable but protracted
negotiations to revise the rules governing Internet use for
House committees and subcommittees. Each committee and
subcommittee--on both the majority (Republican) and minority
(Democrat) sides--was allocated a separate but equal amount
of server space to create a Web page if they so desired.
Under the negotiated plan, Democrats could independently set
up their own sites, to post whatever committee information
they deemed appropriate.
But that rule didn't sit right with Representative Bill
Thomas (R-California), chairman of the House Oversight
Committee, which writes the guidelines governing Internet
use. He figured it gave the Dems too much freedom and would
allow Web surfers simply to bypass any Republican-controlled
Web sites. So he rewrote the regulations and rammed the
changes through by exploiting his power as committee
chairman.
Under the new rules, all subcommittees can have separate
pages, but those pages must be ``linked to, and accessible
only from the committee's page.'' While a Republican
[[Page H7199]]
subcommittee chair might be able to brook that overlord
mentality, the ranking minority members who would control the
committee's opposing Web pages might be a little ticked off.
If you've begun to smell a rat, you're not alone. ``This
means that any time someone wants to see an issue from the
Democrat's side of things, they first have to wade through
the Republican rhetoric,'' said a minority committee staffer.
The rules go further, according to another minority
staffer. ``The committee chairman must approve all content on
the Web sites. I have to ask whatever happened to the First
Amendment on Capitol Hill.''
The rules on this issue are vague, and I could only get my
hands on a draft copy. Staffers at the meeting at which
Thomas ordered the changes swear he made it clear that all
information needed to be ``approved'' by the committee chair
before posting.
That account is disputed by Bill Pierce, Thomas's press
secretary. ``Whatever language you had regarding [content]
approval, it's not the case,'' he said. The rule change is
``about process and not about content at all.'' Pierce noted,
for example, that the minority doesn't have separate
stationary. And this rule change simply makes net resource
allocation ``consistent'' with non-Net resources.
But for Representative Vic Fazio (D-California), ranking
minority member of the House Rules Committee, the issue isn't
that cut and dried. ``What we're talking about is an attempt
to control the minority's communication with the American
people.'' Although the content approval issue is murky,
Fazio put a hard edge on how a committee chair could wield
the ultimate censorship hammer: ``If a chairman doesn't
like the contents of the minority's Web page, he could
simply decide not to have a Web page at all.''
And according to the rules, if the committee chair decides
not to have a page, it means the minority's net voice is
rendered mute. No argument, no debate. It's de facto
censorship and to hell with free speech, even on Capitol
Hill.
Fazio also points out that a committee's majority doesn't
``have access to or control over the content of press
releases or correspondence produced by the minority.'' Since
the Net is simply another way to communicate, and one that
``is taking on greater importance,'' it should be treated as
such, Fazio said, ``There is absolutely no reason that the
majority should control information freely disseminated over
the Internet.''
Thomas's reasoning is beyond me. The Republicans stand a
good chance of losing control of the House in the coming
elections. If they do, and power returns to the Democrats,
then Thomas has just ------ his own party. The Democrats will
be in power and their committee chair will hold the power to
approve content on the Republican committee Web pages.
At first blush, such a power trip seems bent from all
angles. All one would have to do is bookmark the minority
page URL and thus bypass the majority homepage. But according
to a House Rules Committee majority staffer, each committee's
homepage would be generated with a CGI script to prevent
bookmarking. Seems they've thought of everything. I know the
Republican ``revolution'' has hit on tough times, but this is
nothing short of a desperate act, bordering on extreme.
Congress is infamous for its ``sausage-making'' approach to
drafting legislation. Sadly, it appears they are no less
enlightened when it comes to drafting rules for the Internet.
Bratwurst.gov, anyone?
Meeks out . . .
Brock M. Marks.
____
[From the Office of the Democratic Leader, June 4, 1996.]
Republican Policy Restricts Internet Access for Opposition
(By Laura Meckler)
Washington.--If you want to find certain Democratic views
on the World Wide Web, you'll have to go through Republican
territory.
Until now, Web pages produced by the Republican and the
Democratic staffs of House committees were all accessible
from the main menu on the House's Web page.
No more. Under a new policy that has Democrats crying foul,
users will find Democratic committee pages listed only on the
committee's main page, which like the committees themselves
are controlled by Republicans.
``What we're talking about is an attempt to control the
minority's communications with the American people,'' said
Rep. Vic Fazio, D-Calif., the top Democrat on the Oversight
Committee.
``There is absolutely no reason that the majority should
control information freely disseminated over the Internet.''
Fazio and others complain that to access Democratic views,
Web surfers may have to scroll through Republican rhetoric
and a large photograph of the Republican chairman.
In addition, if Republicans on a particular committee
decide not to have a Web site at all, Democrats can't have
one either.
``If a chairman doesn't like the contents of the minority's
Web page, he could simply decide not to have a Web page at
all,'' Fazio said.
A few committees currently have Democratic pages but no
Republican pages. If a committee chairman wants to, he could
kill the Democratic page until there's a GOP counterpart,
said Bill Pierce, spokesman for the Oversight Committee.
The old policy gave each side disk space to produce Web
pages but did not regulate how they are accessed.
Republicans explain that the party in power controls all
committee activities and should control this as well. They
note that all members use the same committee stationery,
which highlight Republicans.
``We are not going to enter a whole new relationship with
the Internet, which is simply an additional way of
communicating,'' said Oversight Chairman Bill Thomas, R-
Calif., according to minutes of a May 23 meeting where this
was discussed. ``Committee activities are under the
control of the chairman of the committee.''
Democrats say the Internet is more like a press release,
which they can distribute on their own.
Their deepest concern is that this is a first step toward
Republican control of content.
``It is even possible that committee chairmen may interpret
the new policy to mean that they have direct control or veto
power over the information that the minority chooses to post
on its Web page,'' Martha Coven of the House Democratic
Policy Committee wrote in a May 28 memo.
There's no chance of that, said Pierce, the Oversight
Committee spokesman. ``It has nothing to do with content.''
In practice, there are many more Republican committee pages
than Democratic ones. Democrats on the Banking and Financial
Services Committee have a page while the Republican do not,
but a committee spokesman said the GOP page should be up and
running this week.
In addition, Thomas noted that the new policy guarantees
Democrats they will have an opportunity to have a Web page.
``What we have in front of us is a progressive policy that
opens up opportunities for the minority,'' Thomas said,
according to the minutes. ``It doesn't close them down.''
The House of Representatives Web page is located at http://
www.house.gov/
____
[From Roll Call, May 27, 1996]
Pre-Election Messages Banned by House
(By Juliet Eilperin and John E. Morrin)
In its ongoing attempt to adjust to a brave new
technological world, Congressional panels last week adopted
several policy changes--including a ban on pre-election mass
communications--and also experimented with new interactive
formats.
But the decisions were not free of controversy or technical
foul-ups.
On Thursday, for example,the House Oversight Committee
voted unanimously to ban unsolicited mass communications 90
days before a primary of general election. In doing so, it
applied previously established House franking rules to
several mediums beyond newsletters, including radio and
newspaper ads; announcing town meetings; the purchase of
broadcast time; production and communication costs for video
and audio services; e-mail messages; and faxes.
``With communication technology developing at an
increasingly rapid pace, it is critical that the House
develop rules consistent with 21st century technology.''
House Oversight chairman Bill Thomas (R-Calif.) announced in
a statement after the hearing.
The role of technology in town meetings first came under
intense scrutiny last month, when Rep. Steve Stockman (R-
Texas) purchased radio time to hold a town meeting. House
Oversight ranking member Vic Fazio (D-Calif.) sharply
criticized the use of official House resources for an event
he likened to a political ad. Thomas, by contrast, argued
that no rules prohibited members from holding town meetings
on the air and such techniques could make lawmakers more
accessible to voters.
Other Members have also come under fire for buying radio
time to announce town meeting, during which they have the
opportunity to toot their own legislative record. While all
the scripts were approved by the bipartisan Franking
Commission, critics said they give incumbents an improper
advantage (Roll Call, April 29).
National Taxpayers Union executive vice president David
Keating, who had asked House Oversight to reimpose its ban on
radio ads, said Thursday's vote constituted ``a good first
step.'' He argued, however, that the funds for radio ads
should be deducted from Members' mailing allowances and the
House ``should strictly limit the content so it sounds more
like a public announcement instead of a campaign ad.''
``Members can still spend literally hundreds of thousands
of dollars in radio spots,'' he said. ``I hope they don't
take advantage of it.''
While the banking reform and the overall adoption of a new
committee handbook enjoyed bipartisan support, Democratic
Members were less happy with the GOP's new committee Internet
policy. Under the policy, which was adopted by voice vote, a
minority committee's Web page can only be accessed through
the majority's Web page.
Under this scenario, one Democratic leadership aide argued,
a voter might have to scroll down through endless pictures of
Commerce Committee Chairman Thomas Bliley (R-Va) and text
describing the GOP's recent accomplishments before linking up
to the minority's site.
[[Page H7200]]
``We view it as a suppression of free speech,'' the staffer
said. ``It's suppressing the minority's right to offer
another perspective.''
Currently, the Democrats on the Banking, Budget, and
Science Committees all have separate Web sites. Under the new
policy, the minority is guaranteed a site only if the
chairman of the panel chooses to establish one.
But the Republicans argue that the Internet, like other
forms of communications, remains under the auspices of the
chairman. In the meeting, Thomas compared the Web page to the
minority's committee stationery, which still includes the
chairman's name at the top.
``They have to right to communicate and state their views,
but under the banner of the full committee,'' a GOP aides
said of the minority.
While House Oversight members grappled over how to
communicate with constituents on Thursday, the House Rules
subcommittee on rules and organization of the House spent the
next morning analyzing how technology would affect
communication between Members.
In the hearing--which featured video links with both a
panel member and a witness--Members debated whether technical
advances would undermine the thoughtful nature of lawmaking.
House Oversight member, Vern Ehlers (R-Mich) called for
several reforms to ease this high-tech transition: a common
format and language for Congressional documents; a set
standard for the creation, maintenance, and purging of
online documents; and legislation allowing Congressional
Research Service reports to be placed online.
He also predicted the technological revolution would reduce
the use of paper, allow citizens to print GPO documents on
demand, and bring video conferencing capability to every
Congressional desk.
These advances, subcommittee Chairman David Dreier (R-
Calif) insisted, should not lead to short cuts like proxy
voting.
``If there is a concern that Members are unduly influenced
by lobbyists waiting in the halls of the Capitol,'' Dreier
said, ``how concerned should we be when they have to vote on
a controversial bill from their district offices with
protesters demonstrating outside?''
Ranking member Tony Beilenson (D-Calif) said he was worried
that the ``essence of communication'' between Members would
be negatively affected by video conferencing.
But committee member Scott McInnis (R-Colo), speaking via
satellite from his district, responded that the technology
will enable him to give greater access to the constituents of
his rural district and allow them greater participation in
the political process.
Beilenson cautioned against embracing technology too
quickly.
``We don't need more information, we need understanding and
wisdom,'' he said. ``Our job is simple--either push the yes
or no button. We shouldn't act immediately.''
Dreier attempted to strike a middle ground between his
colleagues, explaining, ``We need to get information more
efficiently without upsetting the deliberative nature of
Congress.''
While the hearing heralded ``the Third Wave information
age,'' it also underscored the pitfalls of the new era.
Several technical difficulties marred the event, most notably
the absence of Speaker Newt Gingrich (R-Ga) due to a video
conferencing system malfunction. The special Web site
established for the event also failed to work.
____
News Release From Congressman Vic Fazio, May 28, 1996
The following is a statement from Rep. Vic Fazio about the
House Oversight Committee's action on committee web pages:
``What we're talking about is an attempt to control the
minority's communication with the American people. If a
chairman doesn't like the contents of the minority's Web
page, he could simply decides not to have a Web page at all.
``The committee's majority doesn't have access to or
control over the content of press releases and correspondence
produced by the minority. The Internet is another way to
communicate--an electronic form that is taking on greater
importance in American life and society--and should be
treated as such. There is absolutely no reason that the
majority should control information freely disseminated over
the Internet.''
Mr. FAZIO of California. Mr. Chairman, I reserve the balance of my
time.
Mr. PACKARD. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself such time as I may consume.
Mr. Chairman, I want to thank the chairman, and I strongly oppose
this amendment. This amendment would transfer $4 million from the Chief
Administrative Officer of the House to the Members' representational
allowance. The Chief Administrative Officer asked this year, and felt
justified that he needed, a $17 million increase simply to be able to
accomplish the things that the House has asked him to do and his office
to do. This would literally cut them $2.5 million below current levels.
We did not give them the $17 million he asked for. We gave them $1.6
million, and that was barely enough to cover the mandatories; in other
words, the COLA's for staff and the staff benefit packages, which are
mandated by the Government. We had to fund that, but we gave him no
more than that.
We have asked them actually to cut back on their employment levels by
13 positions in this year's bill. To take $4 million out of their
existing levels in this bill would require them to fire about 90
additional staff members of the House. We think that would be
unconscionable.
The bill provides $8 million for the CAO's budget for
telecommunications. The telecommunications, incidentally, is for
computers and telecommunication systems that benefit each of the
Members' offices. Over $1.5 million is for local and district office
telephones that connect directly with our Washington offices, again
directly benefiting our communications within each of our offices.
But the biggest problem of this amendment is not what it does to the
CAO's office but it is what it does in reversing a policy that the
maker of the amendment [Mr. Fazio] was strongly supportive of last year
and really gave us a great deal of help in getting it passed in our
bill last year, and that was the reforms that we wanted to bring about
in Congress. Those reforms are absolutely crucial to the effective
operation of each Member's office. That was in all of the allocations
in budget categories that are allowed for each Member's office. We
consolidated those into one account with the help of the gentleman from
California, and we gave the Members of Congress individually some
flexibility, not some but almost total flexibility, in the use of those
accounts. That was a good move. I think moving toward a consolidated
bill that we had last year was a very good move, and I personally want
to thank the gentleman from California for helping us to do that.
In my judgment, this is a reversal of that process. This takes us
back to where we were before, and I think that would not be a move in
the right direction; a step backward, I think.
Mr. FAZIO of California. Mr. Chairman, will the gentleman yield?
Mr. PACKARD. I yield to the gentleman from California.
Mr. FAZIO of California. Mr. Chairman, I concur. I think this is a 1-
year effort to surround this funding for purposes of Member investment
in computerization, telecommunications, simply because I do not think
the CAO has spent his money wisely.
But I agree with the gentleman and with the chairman of the Committee
on House Oversight that, as a general rule, we ought to give complete
license to the Members.
Mr. PACKARD. Reclaiming my time, I think that this is just the first
step, though, in reversing that process and the next step would be some
Member of the Congress would want to put controls on E-mail, travel and
everything else that Members now have some flexibility in.
So I would hope and I would urge the Members of the House to resist
this amendment that would be, in my judgment, regressive from the
policies that we have established in the past.
Mr. Chairman, I reserve the balance of my time.
Mr. FAZIO of California. Mr. Chairman, I yield 2 minutes to the
gentleman from California [Mr. Brown].
(Mr. BROWN of California asked and was given permission to revise and
extend his remarks.)
Mr. BROWN of California. Mr. Chairman, I thank the gentleman for
yielding me the time.
Mr. Chairman, I rise in full support of the amendment which he has
put before us with regard to the transfer of the $4 million from the
CAO to the Members' allowance.
But I would like to use a minute or so to discuss the other item
which the gentleman from California referred to, and that is the policy
with regard to minority access to the Internet through the majority.
This was the subject of a rather extensive article in the Washington
Post on July 1 which is headlined ``House Web server leaving minority
off the menu.'' While that may be a slight exaggeration, I think it is
true that what this does is put an additional roadblock in the way of
our Representatives throughout the United States having access to the
material emanating from the minority in the Congress.
[[Page H7201]]
Now, in an ideal world, of course, the majority would contend, and it
might be true, that this was not a roadblock and that there was no
effort to censor or in any other way restrict communication. This is
not an ideal world, and I will tell Members that the very fact that we
have to use access through the majority is going to be a block which
many constituents will find insurmountable because it will take an
additional 1 or 2 minutes on their computer if they have a slow
computer to scroll through and find out where the minority actually is
within this vast network.
It is for this reason that it is a roadblock when we should be trying
to make it easier, not because I suspect that the majority would want
to do anything to restrict our minority page that I think this is a
poor policy. We are doing everything possible to make it easier for
people to communicate, constituents to communicate with their
Representatives. This goes in the opposite direction. It is poor
policy, and I urge that something be done to correct this at the
earliest possible date.
Mr. PACKARD. Mr. Chairman, I yield 6 minutes to the gentleman from
California [Mr. Thomas], the chairman of the Committee on House
Oversight.
(Mr. THOMAS asked and was given permission to revise and extend his
remarks.)
Mr. THOMAS. Mr. Chairman, first of all, let me rise to comment on the
specific amendment which we are supposed to be dealing with during this
time, and I do not know about the desire for Members to have a
referendum on the CAO. I am concerned about the language of the
amendment which the gentleman from California, who as a member of the
Appropriations Committee and the authorizing committee has the ability
to move freely between the two areas, and attempt to write policy from
an authorizing committee position in the appropriation. We are supposed
to have that be against the rules. It is legislating on an
appropriations bill, but the Committee on Rules did make it in order,
notwithstanding that.
My problem is that it builds a fence around the $4 million. I would
be less opposed to the amendment if he gave the $4 million to the House
Committee on Oversight so that we could place it where the Members
could get the best use out of it. This amendment places it where the
gentleman from California thinks we can get the best use out of it.
Where we are is the gentleman from California, notwithstanding the
fact that he is in the minority, still wants to basically run the place
and tell people what to do. I do not deny that that is a desirable
position, it is just that I wanted 16 years to be in the same one and I
would now like to exercise it. But the gentleman from California
apparently does not want me to because he wants to tell me where to put
the money.
At the beginning of this Congress, we took the separate categories of
the Members' representational account and put them into one so that
Members would have freedom to choose between staff or computers or
travel or a district office. The gentleman now wants to go back to the
policies of old, that he has already repudiated by his vote in
committee, to free up the ability to determine where the member spends
his money.
So on that particular amendment, I would ask for your opposition.
Now the Internet. The gentleman from California said something that I
agree with, and that is that the Internet is information in a different
form. After that, I had a fairly fundamental disagreement with what he
has had to say. I really believe the people who took the floor earlier
and said this was a gag rule--the gentleman from Colorado said it was
un-American, that this is censorship I think got a little carried away
with their rhetoric.
The reason I agree with the gentleman from California [Mr. Fazio]
that this is information in a different form is that we really ought to
look at that information in a different form so that we can understand
what we are talking about. Committees give reports. They hold hearings.
They write a report. Very often the minority dissents from the majority
report, and so you have the majority report and the minority report. Is
the minority report presented in a completely separate document
available to those constituents who want to find out about the hearing?
No. It is included in a package that says, ``Committee on House
Oversight, House of Representatives, together with minority views.'' It
is the majority and the minority combined.
The gentleman, and I think he waxed eloquent in the Committee on
Rules, said that it was possible that visitors would probably thumb
through 120 electronic pages to be able to find the minority location.
Every committee in the House except the Committee on Standards of
Official Conduct and the Committee on Intelligence has a Web site. We
might understand why those two prefer not to have a Web site: The
Ethics one probably would be too full and the Intelligence one would be
blank. But for the other committees, here is the Committee on
Resources. First page, picture of the chairman, Democrats, minority of
the committee. We do not have to thumb through pages; it's right there.
It is on the front, just like the reports. Committee on Economic and
Educational Opportunities, right up front. ``Welcome to the House
Committee on Banking and Financial Services. Greetings from Chairman
Jim Leach;'' the Democrats' view, right up front. House Committee on
the Budget, they even put a donkey so that those folks who have trouble
with the cursive can locate the minority home page.
The gentleman from California [Mr. Brown] was complaining about the
Committee on Science. We do have to go to the second page on the
Committee on Science because the chairman decided ``Hot News'' would
take up a third of the page. Current issues that affect both the
majority and the minority would take up a portion of the first page;
but right there, the Democrats.
Let me talk about information in another form in another way. If we
go to the House of Representatives telephone directory, we will find
staff listed alphabetically. We will find staff listed by Members'
offices, and we will find staff listed and Members listed by committee.
On that page it says Committee on House Oversight, for example, just
thumbing to that page, the majority, the minority, the majority staff,
the minority staff, located by committee.
What the gentleman from California and the others are really asking
for is something that is unprecedented in the history of the House, a
wedge, if you will, to open up the opportunity to create a distinct and
separate structure for the minority.
Now, if our colleagues had been in the majority for 40 years and now
have to suffer under the yoke of being in the minority, our colleagues
would not accept the fact that their colleagues share the page with the
majority in the phone book or share the pages under the cover of
committee reports or that they are second on the Internet page for the
particular committee. Our colleagues would want their own distinct
structure.
Well, it has never been that way. They are trying to use this
argument of censorship on the Internet as a wedge argument to begin to
unravel the 40 years of history that they established as the majority.
Now, the new majority is somewhat more conservative than the old and
we probably would tend to hang on to those areas that worked well. One
of the areas that worked well was to use the committee as the
structure, underneath that, the majority and the minority. All we are
doing is continuing that structure on the Internet as well.
{time} 1530
Mr. PACKARD. Mr. Chairman, I have no further requests for time, and I
reserve the balance of my time.
Mr. FAZIO of California. Mr. Chairman, I yield 2\1/2\ minutes to the
gentlewoman from California [Ms. Lofgren].
Ms. LOFGREN. Mr. Chairman, in listening to the prior speaker, it
occurred to me that perhaps he has not searched the Web extensively
because I heard the analogy to committee reports. Now I am new to the
Congress, but I read some committee reports and they tend to go through
legislation, and there are pros and cons on each side, and they are
bound together in one volume. I think that is just dandy. That is the
way it ought to be. But if you take a look at Web sites, that is not
what you find.
[[Page H7202]]
For example, in the Committee on Resources Web site there is a
picture of the chairman, along with articles like, ``The Republican
Investment in the Environment,'' which is bookmarked under ``Humor'' on
the Web, and there is a small link to Democrats buried under committee
information. The Joint Economic Committee opens with, ``Welcome to the
home page of Vice Chairman Saxton and House Republican members of the
JEC.'' It then links to each Republican JEC House member and the JEC
Republicans in the Senate, and provides the text of partisan Republican
publications on the ``Contract With America'' and the ``Debt Limit
Charade.''
These are not like committee reports, and requiring the minority to
be just a subset of the majority on Web sites is kind of like saying
you can send out a press release, minority, but only if you staple it
to the majority's press release, if they send one out. That is what I
object to. I think it is what most Members who are speaking here object
to.
The fact is that under the House rules that we adopted, there is 10
megabytes of space for the majority and there is 10 megabytes of space
for the minority. That space should be used, hopefully prudently,
honestly and usefully for the American public, by each side to speak
the truth about what they know of issues of importance to America.
A few hours ago I talked to a gentleman in high-tech who had heard
the debate. He is an immigrant. He built his company from nothing and
he said this is fascism. This immigrant said he has heard what is going
on. He said that he comes from a place where he saw fascism arrive.
``You leaders in America must stop fascism when it first surfaces, when
you first see those signs,'' he said, ``and that is now. Please do not
allow this to happen.''
Mr. Chairman, I thank the gentleman from California for allowing me
to speak.
Mr. PACKARD. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself 2 minutes for a response.
Mr. Chairman, I really seriously object to the analogy that was just
used, fascism.
Mr. FAZIO of California. Mr. Chairman, will the gentleman yield?
Mr. PACKARD. I yield to the gentleman from California.
Mr. FAZIO of California. Mr. Chairman, I am sure that was not really
the intent of the gentlewoman. The concern, obviously, is great, but I
would not want to typify it as anything more than a disagreement on
policy.
Mr. PACKARD. Mr. Chairman, reclaiming my time, I would appreciate the
gentlewoman's response.
Ms. LOFGREN. Mr. Chairman, will the gentleman yield?
Mr. PACKARD. I yield to the gentlewoman from California.
Ms. LOFGREN. Mr. Chairman, I was quoting an individual who spoke to
me, not a Member of this body. And perhaps as a new Member I am not as
aware of the rules as I might have been. If it offended or it was
inappropriate, I would certainly withdraw the remark.
Mr. PACKARD. Mr. Chairman, reclaiming my time, I think the
association, though, to this body or to any Members of this body or
either side of this body is an inappropriate association.
Mr. Chairman, I simply want to express one point, and that is that
this amendment will cost money. The House information resources can
negotiate a large volume of purchases and thus get volume buying and
volume cost discounts for the entire cyber Congress initiative. Some
440 individual contracts are negotiated by each Member, and that would
lead to a lot of additional expense. It would lead to a lack of
standardization of our equipment in each of our offices, and, overall,
I think it would be chaotic.
In conclusion, Mr. Chairman, from today's issue of The New York Times
I read where it says, ``For years, each lawmaker has decided which
computer system, if any, they wished to buy and to install in their
office. This has led to a congressional Tower of Babel that receives a
total of 100,000 E-mail messages a week. Some messages arrive three
days late on one of nine overlap systems.''
So I really would oppose this amendment and feel, again, it would be
regressive.
Mr. Chairman, first of all, may I inquire how much time I have
remaining.
Mr. CHAIRMAN. The gentleman from California [Mr. Packard] has 3
minutes remaining, and the gentleman from California [Mr. Fazio] has 30
seconds remaining.
Mr. PACKARD. Mr. Chairman, I yield 1\1/2\ minutes to the gentleman
from California [Mr. Thomas].
Mr. THOMAS. Mr. Chairman, I thank the gentleman for yielding me this
time.
I find it rather hypocritical to respond to the comment about fascism
that ``I have done my homework and I know that it was a quote and,
therefore, in quoting others on the floor that it is not a breach of
the rules; however, since I am a new Member I may not be aware of the
rules.''
It seems to me we cannot have it both ways. The gentlewoman knew
exactly what she was trying to do, and what she did was interject a
level of hostility which is totally inappropriate on this particular
subject. What she does not know, perhaps, is that there was never any
intention not to provide the ordinary software procedures for moving to
sites that one is returning to by those people who browse frequently.
The problem arose when the ranking Member, using that unique
authorizing and appropriations avenue that he has, moved to the
appropriations route to try to meet his needs instead of sitting down
with the chairman of the committee and working it out.
As we move forward with this new technology, just as we have in every
area, just as the letterhead says, chairman and minority, we will
share. And we share far more than the other side ever shared when they
were the majority. We are doing more in reaching out to the minority
than they did, and we will continue that trend, despite the references.
Mr. PACKARD. Mr. Chairman, I reserve the balance of my time.
Mr. FAZIO of California. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself the balance of
my time to simply say this amendment, of course, does not go to the
Internet policy. It does, however, I think send a message to the CAO
that we need to manage the cyber-Congress in a much more effective way.
Just simply in reference to Internet policy, my only reason for
bringing it this route is that, of course, our committee makes these
decisions in and of itself. I do not mean to deny that that in most
cases is appropriate. But this is a new policy. It ought to be a
solidly compromised and accepted policy by all, on all sides of the
debate, minority or majority, and I do think this is a worthy
discussion for us to have. I would hope Members would err on the side
of openness and equal access to the Internet.
Mr. PACKARD. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself the balance of my time,
and, in closing, I would like to emphasize that I do not believe we
have ever had a time when there has been more willingness to cooperate
than this majority has extended to this minority. We, I think, have
bent over backwards to make equal access, equal opportunity and equal
funding for virtually everything we do, and I think that the gentleman
from California would admit to that.
This amendment takes money away from our movement to the cyber-
Congress, to the electronic age for this body and for each of our
offices, and all of which really benefits our communications and our
operations. These investments will make us more efficient and more
effective in our offices, both in our congressional districts and here
in Washington. Instead, this amendment would free up additional money
in our allowances for additional mailings and travel and a variety of
other things that I think the public would really object to. I think
that would be move in the wrong direction.
Mr. Chairman, I urge my colleagues to oppose this amendment, and I
yield back the balance of my time.
The CHAIRMAN. The question is on the amendment of the gentleman from
California [Mr. Fazio].
The amendment was rejected.
sequential votes postponed in committee of the whole
The CHAIRMAN. Pursuant to House Resolution 473, proceedings will now
resume on those amendments on which further proceedings were postponed,
in the following order: Amendment No. 6, as modified, offered by the
gentleman
[[Page H7203]]
from California [Mr. Campbell], and amendment No. 7 offered by the
gentleman from Minnesota [Mr. Gutknecht].
Pursuant to clause 2 of rule XXIII, the Chair will reduce to a
minimum of 5 minutes the time for an electronic vote, if ordered, on
the pending question following this vote.
amendment, as modified, offered by mr. campbell
The CHAIRMAN. The pending business is the demand for a recorded vote
on the amendment, as modified, offered by the gentleman from California
[Mr. Campbell], on which further proceedings were postponed and on
which the noes prevailed by a voice vote.
The Clerk will redesignate the amendment.
The Clerk redesignated the amendment.
recorded vote
The CHAIRMAN. A recorded vote has been demanded.
A recorded vote was ordered.
The vote was taken by electronic device, and there were--ayes 239,
noes 181, not voting 14, as follows:
[Roll No. 295]
AYES--239
Allard
Andrews
Archer
Armey
Bachus
Baker (CA)
Baker (LA)
Ballenger
Barcia
Barr
Barrett (NE)
Bartlett
Barton
Bass
Bateman
Bereuter
Berman
Bilbray
Bilirakis
Bliley
Blute
Boehlert
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
Condit
Cooley
Cox
Crane
Crapo
Cremeans
Cubin
Cunningham
Davis
Deal
DeLay
Diaz-Balart
Dickey
Dooley
Doolittle
Dornan
Dreier
Duncan
Ehlers
Ehrlich
English
Ensign
Everett
Ewing
Fawell
Fields (TX)
Flanagan
Foley
Forbes
Fowler
Fox
Franks (CT)
Frelinghuysen
Frisa
Funderburk
Gallegly
Ganske
Gekas
Geren
Gilchrest
Gillmor
Gilman
Gingrich
Goodlatte
Goodling
Goss
Graham
Greene (UT)
Greenwood
Gunderson
Gutknecht
Hall (TX)
Hamilton
Hancock
Hansen
Harman
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
Leach
Lewis (CA)
Lewis (KY)
Lightfoot
Linder
Livingston
LoBiondo
Lucas
Manzullo
Martini
McCollum
McCrery
McHugh
McInnis
McIntosh
McKeon
Metcalf
Meyers
Mica
Miller (FL)
Molinari
Moorhead
Moran
Morella
Myers
Myrick
Nethercutt
Ney
Norwood
Nussle
Oxley
Packard
Paxon
Peterson (MN)
Petri
Pombo
Porter
Portman
Pryce
Quillen
Quinn
Radanovich
Ramstad
Regula
Riggs
Roberts
Roemer
Rogers
Rohrabacher
Ros-Lehtinen
Roth
Royce
Salmon
Sanford
Saxton
Scarborough
Schaefer
Schiff
Seastrand
Sensenbrenner
Shadegg
Shaw
Shays
Shuster
Skeen
Smith (MI)
Smith (NJ)
Smith (TX)
Smith (WA)
Solomon
Souder
Spence
Stearns
Stockman
Stump
Talent
Tate
Tauzin
Taylor (NC)
Thomas
Thornberry
Tiahrt
Torkildsen
Traficant
Upton
Vucanovich
Walker
Walsh
Wamp
Watts (OK)
Weldon (FL)
Weldon (PA)
Weller
White
Whitfield
Wicker
Wolf
Young (AK)
Zeliff
Zimmer
NOES--181
Abercrombie
Ackerman
Baesler
Baldacci
Barrett (WI)
Becerra
Beilenson
Bentsen
Bevill
Bishop
Blumenauer
Bonior
Borski
Boucher
Browder
Brown (CA)
Brown (FL)
Brown (OH)
Bryant (TX)
Cardin
Chapman
Clayton
Clement
Clyburn
Coleman
Collins (IL)
Collins (MI)
Conyers
Costello
Coyne
Cramer
Cummings
Danner
de la Garza
DeFazio
DeLauro
Dellums
Deutsch
Dicks
Dingell
Dixon
Doggett
Doyle
Durbin
Edwards
Engel
Eshoo
Evans
Farr
Fattah
Fazio
Fields (LA)
Filner
Flake
Foglietta
Frank (MA)
Franks (NJ)
Frost
Furse
Gejdenson
Gonzalez
Gordon
Green (TX)
Hall (OH)
Hastings (FL)
Hefner
Hilliard
Hinchey
Holden
Hoyer
Jackson (IL)
Jackson-Lee (TX)
Jacobs
Jefferson
Johnson (SD)
Johnson, E. B.
Johnston
Kanjorski
Kaptur
Kennedy (MA)
Kennedy (RI)
Kennelly
Kildee
Kleczka
Klink
LaFalce
Lazio
Levin
Lewis (GA)
Lipinski
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
Montgomery
Murtha
Nadler
Neal
Neumann
Oberstar
Obey
Olver
Ortiz
Orton
Owens
Pallone
Parker
Pastor
Payne (NJ)
Payne (VA)
Pelosi
Peterson (FL)
Pickett
Pomeroy
Poshard
Rahall
Reed
Richardson
Rivers
Rose
Roukema
Roybal-Allard
Rush
Sabo
Sanders
Sawyer
Schroeder
Schumer
Scott
Serrano
Sisisky
Skaggs
Skelton
Slaughter
Spratt
Stark
Stenholm
Stokes
Studds
Stupak
Tanner
Taylor (MS)
Tejeda
Thompson
Thornton
Thurman
Torres
Torricelli
Towns
Velazquez
Vento
Visclosky
Volkmer
Ward
Waters
Waxman
Williams
Wilson
Wise
Woolsey
Wynn
Yates
NOT VOTING--14
Clay
Dunn
Ford
Gephardt
Gibbons
Gutierrez
Hayes
Lantos
Lincoln
Longley
McDade
Rangel
Watt (NC)
Young (FL)
{time} 1601
The Clerk announced the following pairs:
On this vote:
Ms. Dunn of Washington for, with Mr. Clay against.
Mr. Longley for, with Mr. Rangel against.
Ms. FURSE, Mr. TAYLOR of Mississippi, and Mr. MONTGOMERY changed
their vote from ``aye'' to ``no.''
Mr. CHABOT and Mr. BERMAN changed their vote from ``no'' to ``aye.''
So the amendment was agreed to.
The result of the vote was announced as above recorded.
amendment offered by mr. gutknecht
The CHAIRMAN. The pending business is the demand for a recorded vote
on the amendment offered by the gentleman from Minnesota [Mr.
Gutknecht], on which further proceedings were postponed and on which
the noes prevailed by voice vote.
The Clerk will redesignate the amendment.
The Clerk redesignated the amendment.
recorded vote
The CHAIRMAN. A recorded vote has been demanded.
A recorded vote was ordered.
The CHAIRMAN. This is a 5-minute vote.
The vote was taken by electronic device, and there were--ayes 172,
noes 248, not voting 13, as follows:
[Roll No. 296]
AYES--172
Allard
Baker (CA)
Baldacci
Barcia
Barr
Barrett (WI)
Bartlett
Barton
Bentsen
Blute
Browder
Brownback
Bryant (TN)
Bunning
Burton
Camp
Campbell
Chabot
Chambliss
Chenoweth
Christensen
Chrysler
Coble
Coburn
Collins (GA)
Combest
Condit
Cooley
Cox
Cramer
Crane
Crapo
Cremeans
Cubin
Cunningham
Danner
Davis
Deal
Dickey
Doggett
Doyle
Dreier
Duncan
Ensign
Ewing
Fawell
Flanagan
Foley
Fox
Franks (CT)
Franks (NJ)
Funderburk
Furse
Ganske
Geren
Gillmor
Goodlatte
Gordon
Goss
Graham
Green (TX)
Gutknecht
Hall (TX)
Hamilton
Hancock
Harman
Hastings (WA)
Hayworth
Hefley
Heineman
Herger
Hilleary
Hoekstra
Hoke
Holden
Hostettler
Hutchinson
Inglis
Istook
Jacobs
Johnson, Sam
Jones
Kasich
Kelly
Kim
Kleczka
Klug
LaHood
Largent
Latham
Laughlin
Leach
Lewis (KY)
Linder
LoBiondo
Lofgren
Lucas
Luther
Maloney
Manzullo
Martini
Mascara
McHale
McHugh
McInnis
McIntosh
Meehan
Metcalf
Meyers
Mica
Minge
Montgomery
Moorhead
Myrick
Neumann
Norwood
Nussle
Orton
Parker
Pastor
Paxon
Peterson (MN)
Petri
Pombo
Portman
Poshard
Quinn
Radanovich
Ramstad
Roberts
Roemer
Rohrabacher
Ros-Lehtinen
Roth
Roukema
Royce
Salmon
Sanford
Scarborough
Schaefer
Schumer
Seastrand
Sensenbrenner
Shadegg
Shays
Smith (MI)
Smith (NJ)
Smith (WA)
Solomon
Souder
Spence
Stearns
Stenholm
Stockman
Stump
Stupak
Talent
Tanner
Tate
Taylor (MS)
Taylor (NC)
Thornberry
[[Page H7204]]
Tiahrt
Torricelli
Upton
Ward
Watts (OK)
Weldon (FL)
Weller
White
Whitfield
Zimmer
NOES--248
Abercrombie
Ackerman
Andrews
Archer
Armey
Bachus
Baesler
Baker (LA)
Ballenger
Barrett (NE)
Bass
Bateman
Becerra
Beilenson
Bereuter
Berman
Bevill
Bilbray
Bilirakis
Bishop
Bliley
Blumenauer
Boehlert
Boehner
Bonilla
Bonior
Bono
Borski
Boucher
Brewster
Brown (CA)
Brown (FL)
Brown (OH)
Bryant (TX)
Bunn
Burr
Buyer
Callahan
Calvert
Canady
Cardin
Castle
Chapman
Clayton
Clement
Clinger
Clyburn
Coleman
Collins (IL)
Collins (MI)
Conyers
Costello
Coyne
Cummings
de la Garza
DeFazio
DeLauro
DeLay
Dellums
Deutsch
Diaz-Balart
Dicks
Dingell
Dixon
Dooley
Doolittle
Dornan
Durbin
Edwards
Ehlers
Ehrlich
Engel
English
Eshoo
Evans
Everett
Farr
Fattah
Fazio
Fields (LA)
Fields (TX)
Filner
Flake
Foglietta
Forbes
Fowler
Frank (MA)
Frelinghuysen
Frisa
Frost
Gallegly
Gejdenson
Gekas
Gilchrest
Gilman
Gonzalez
Goodling
Greene (UT)
Greenwood
Gunderson
Hall (OH)
Hansen
Hastert
Hastings (FL)
Hefner
Hilliard
Hinchey
Hobson
Horn
Houghton
Hoyer
Hunter
Hyde
Jackson (IL)
Jackson-Lee (TX)
Jefferson
Johnson (CT)
Johnson (SD)
Johnson, E. B.
Johnston
Kanjorski
Kaptur
Kennedy (MA)
Kennedy (RI)
Kennelly
Kildee
King
Kingston
Klink
Knollenberg
Kolbe
LaFalce
LaTourette
Lazio
Levin
Lewis (CA)
Lewis (GA)
Lightfoot
Lipinski
Livingston
Lowey
Manton
Markey
Martinez
Matsui
McCarthy
McCollum
McCrery
McDermott
McKeon
McKinney
McNulty
Meek
Menendez
Millender-McDonald
Miller (CA)
Miller (FL)
Mink
Moakley
Molinari
Mollohan
Moran
Morella
Murtha
Myers
Nadler
Neal
Nethercutt
Ney
Oberstar
Obey
Olver
Ortiz
Owens
Oxley
Packard
Pallone
Payne (NJ)
Payne (VA)
Pelosi
Peterson (FL)
Pickett
Pomeroy
Porter
Pryce
Quillen
Rahall
Rangel
Reed
Regula
Richardson
Riggs
Rivers
Rogers
Rose
Roybal-Allard
Rush
Sabo
Sanders
Sawyer
Saxton
Schiff
Schroeder
Scott
Serrano
Shaw
Shuster
Sisisky
Skaggs
Skeen
Skelton
Slaughter
Smith (TX)
Spratt
Stark
Stokes
Studds
Tauzin
Tejeda
Thomas
Thompson
Thornton
Thurman
Torkildsen
Torres
Towns
Traficant
Velazquez
Vento
Visclosky
Volkmer
Vucanovich
Walker
Walsh
Wamp
Waters
Waxman
Weldon (PA)
Wicker
Williams
Wilson
Wise
Wolf
Woolsey
Wynn
Yates
Young (AK)
Zeliff
NOT VOTING--13
Clay
Dunn
Ford
Gephardt
Gibbons
Gutierrez
Hayes
Lantos
Lincoln
Longley
McDade
Watt (NC)
Young (FL)
{time} 1610
Mrs. CUBIN, and Messrs. PORTMAN, McINTOSH, and BROWDER changed their
vote from ``no'' to ``aye.''
So the amendment was rejected.
The result of the vote was announced as above recorded.
The CHAIRMAN. Under the rule, the Committee rises.
Accordingly the Committee rose; and the Speaker pro tempore (Mr.
LaHood) having assumed the chair, Mr. Linder, 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. 3754) making
appropriations for the legislative branch for the fiscal year ending
September 30, 1997, and for other purposes, pursuant to House
Resolution 473, he reported the bill back to the House with sundry
amendments adopted by the Committee of the Whole.
The SPEAKER pro tempore. Under the rule, the previous question is
ordered.
Is a separate vote demanded on any amendment? If not, the Chair will
put them en gross.
The amendments were 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.
motion to recommit offered by mr. fazio of california
Mr. FAZIO of California. Mr. Chairman, I offer a motion to recommit.
The SPEAKER pro tempore. Is the gentleman opposed to the bill?
Mr. FAZIO of California. Mr. Speaker, at the moment, I am.
{time} 1615
The SPEAKER pro tempore. The Clerk will report the motion to
recommit.
The Clerk read as follows:
Mr. Fazio of California moves to recommit the bill H.R.
3754 to the Committee on Appropriations with instructions to
report the same back to the House forthwith with the
following amendments:
On page 4, line 7, strike ``$22,577,000'' and insert
``$22,427,000'' and
On page 4, line 8, strike ``$16,577,000'' and insert
``$16,427,000''.
The SPEAKER pro tempore (Mr. LaHood). The gentleman from California
[Mr. Fazio] is recognized for 5 minutes in support of his motion to
recommit.
Mr. FAZIO of California. Mr. Speaker, the motion I am offering
instructs the bill being reduced by $150,000 through the account of
HIR. This is the amount that is necessary for the Republican majority
to implement their new Internet policy which we believe denies
Democrats our own independently accessed Web site. This amount of money
is a relatively small amount.
Mr. Speaker, I yield to the gentlewoman from California [Ms. Lofgren]
who could explain how this could easily be attained by more efficient
policy procurement.
Ms. LOFGREN. Mr. Speaker, I support the motion to recommit because
its intent is to avoid a policy that I believe will have the effect of
stifling voices of dissent, which will not serve this body or our
country well.
As the House is aware, every office will soon be getting a computer
as part of our new CyberCongress initiative. I was interested on the
details on it and did get the cost for the computer, which is
$5,367.12. I took the specs for that computer and went to a normal
vendor outside of the favorite inside vendor and asked them for an
estimate. They came in with a cost that is $900 per computer, less for
a better machine, 120 megahertz as compared to the 100 megahertz that
the House has purchased. If that were expanded to all 435 offices, that
would be nearly $400,000 that this House would save.
Mr. Speaker, I think we ought to do that whether or not the motion to
recommit is approved, but clearly if this motion is approved, we can
save at least $150,000 just by making a better purchase on the new
computers for each House office.
Mr. FAZIO of California. Reclaiming my time, Mr. Speaker, my motion
concerns the Internet policy set by the Committee on House Oversight on
May 23. It will prevent funds from being spent to implement this
policy. But I believe it is a policy of sufficient importance that it
needs to be reevaluated as we consider funding for House operations.
This is the only opportunity allowed by the Committee on Rules.
A restricted Internet policy is certainly one we are going to all
have to explain to our constituents, so we should all have a chance
here today to make a judgment on this policy, not simply majority of
seven within the Committee on House Oversight, all Republicans.
The policy, as issued, prevents access to Democratic pages, Web
pages, unless a user goes to the Republican page first. As was said in
the earlier debate, it is like requiring, when we put out a press
release, that we staple on top of it a press release from the other
point of view. Our constituents may have to scroll through literally
hundreds of screens of Republican information to even discover that the
Democrats have a Web site at all.
In fact, when we made this policy, the chairman made it clear at the
hearing that if a committee Chair unilaterally did not want a minority
Web page at all, he or she could simply refuse to have a Web page for
the majority. This is, pure and simple, a restriction on access to
information. The effect of this policy is that users of the Internet
and the World Wide Web, our constituents, cannot get the information
they want.
It would be similar to this analogy: The freshmen have a Web site;
the Republican freshmen. Should the public have to access the
Democratic freshmen Web site through the Republican
[[Page H7205]]
freshmen Web site? It would be, I think, ludicrous. Of course not. But
it illustrates, I think, how ridiculous this policy can really be.
It is a bad policy to restrict information for. It flies in the face
of all the discussion of a vaunted open Congress. It perverts the whole
idea behind the free flow of electronic information that is inherent in
the idea behind the Internet and the World Wide Web itself.
So I want to prevail upon the reason, the wisdom, the common sense of
my colleagues and ask them to reject this policy, support this minimal
reduction in the HIR budget, one we could easily make up with a tighter
procurement policy, and strike a blow for open information regardless
of whether one is with the minority or the majority.
After all, we all must anticipate during our careers we will share
the experience in both categories.
The SPEAKER pro tempore. Is the gentleman from California [Mr.
Packard] opposed to the motion to recommit?
Mr. PACKARD. Absolutely, Mr. Speaker.
The SPEAKER pro tempore. The gentleman from California is recognized
for 5 minutes.
Mr. PACKARD. Mr. Speaker, this is not a Republican Internet system.
This is a bipartisan, bicameral system. The Members of the
CyberCongress roster, the Internet Caucus roster, is made up of 50
Members of the House and Senate on both sides of the aisle, and they
strongly urge that we proceed forward with the Web page and the
Internet system.
This motion to recommit will mean that the team of computer experts
who are helping individual Members, each of us, put their Web site on
the Internet will be eliminated in this motion to recommit. This team
not only helps the committees install their own Web pages, but it helps
train our colleagues and their staff on how to use the Internet for
their Web sites.
Mr. Chairman, this recommittal will harm the House's ability to use
the Internet and make information available to our constituents. This
funding is for two or three people who support Members and committee
staff to present material in a clear and relevant way to the American
people.
This is a policy issue, not an issue of funding, and should be dealt
with in the policy forum, not through this bill. Currently 12 inquiries
are received daily by HIR which reflect a growing demand on this
service.
I urge my colleagues in a bipartisan way to reject this motion to
recommit because it will hurt our colleagues' individual offices as
they move toward the Internet.
Mr. Speaker, I yield to the gentleman from California [Mr. Thomas],
chairman of the Committee on House Oversight.
Mr. THOMAS. Mr. Speaker, if anyone ever wondered what was meant by
the old phrase, ``cut off your nose to spite your face,'' we have got
exhibit A in front of us in this motion to recommit.
The gentleman from California talked about the committee Web sites,
that we have to go through hundreds of pages. Just a short time ago I
showed our colleagues the pages. It is right on the front page. They
even use an icon of a donkey for those who are not sure where they are
supposed to go. We provide a book mark, go to that site once, and then
in the software the return user can go directly to the minority site.
Every committee has it except the Committee on Standards of Official
Conduct and the Permanent Select Committee on Intelligence. What he
proposes to do is cut out the employees in HIR that assist in the more
than 180 Web sites.
Democrats and Republicans, we heard speech after speech about wanting
an open Congress, wanting a House that was more willing to work with
people on the outside, and we were not willing to do that by having the
committees with the majority and the minority tied together like it is
everywhere else.
I say to my colleagues, ``This amendment cuts off your nose to spite
your face. You are going to deny support services to Democrats as well
as Republicans, to groups like freshmen Democrats and freshmen
Republicans so you can make a point backed up by facts that simply are
not so.''
I would urge a ``no'' vote on the motion to recommit.
Mr. PACKARD. Reclaiming my time, Mr. Speaker, I strongly urge on a
bipartisan basis that we, for our own good and for the good of our
CyberCongress and our individual offices, vote this motion to recommit
down, and I yield back the balance of my time.
The SPEAKER pro tempore. Without objection, the previous question is
ordered on the motion to recommit.
There was no objection.
The SPEAKER pro tempore. The question is on the motion to recommit.
The question was taken; and the Speaker pro tempore announced that
the noes appeared to have it.
Recorded Vote
Mr. FAZIO of California. Mr. Speaker, I demand a recorded vote.
A recorded vote was ordered.
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 passage.
The vote was taken by electonic device, and there were--ayes 191,
noes 230, not voting 12, as follows:
[Roll No. 297]
AYES--191
Abercrombie
Ackerman
Andrews
Baesler
Baldacci
Barcia
Barrett (WI)
Becerra
Beilenson
Bentsen
Berman
Bevill
Bishop
Blumenauer
Bonior
Borski
Boucher
Brewster
Browder
Brown (CA)
Brown (FL)
Brown (OH)
Bryant (TX)
Cardin
Chapman
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
Dooley
Doyle
Durbin
Edwards
Engel
Eshoo
Evans
Farr
Fattah
Fazio
Fields (LA)
Filner
Flake
Foglietta
Frank (MA)
Frost
Furse
Gejdenson
Gephardt
Geren
Gonzalez
Gordon
Green (TX)
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
Kaptur
Kennedy (MA)
Kennedy (RI)
Kennelly
Kildee
Kleczka
Klink
LaFalce
Levin
Lewis (GA)
Lipinski
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
Montgomery
Moran
Murtha
Nadler
Neal
Oberstar
Obey
Olver
Ortiz
Orton
Owens
Pallone
Pastor
Payne (NJ)
Payne (VA)
Pelosi
Peterson (FL)
Pickett
Pomeroy
Poshard
Rahall
Rangel
Reed
Richardson
Rivers
Roemer
Rose
Roybal-Allard
Rush
Sabo
Sanders
Sawyer
Schroeder
Schumer
Scott
Serrano
Sisisky
Skaggs
Skelton
Slaughter
Spratt
Stark
Stenholm
Stokes
Studds
Stupak
Tanner
Tauzin
Taylor (MS)
Tejeda
Thompson
Thornton
Thurman
Torres
Torricelli
Towns
Traficant
Velazquez
Vento
Visclosky
Volkmer
Ward
Waters
Waxman
Williams
Wilson
Wise
Woolsey
Wynn
Yates
NOES--230
Allard
Archer
Armey
Bachus
Baker (CA)
Baker (LA)
Ballenger
Barr
Barrett (NE)
Bartlett
Barton
Bass
Bateman
Bereuter
Bilbray
Bilirakis
Bliley
Blute
Boehlert
Boehner
Bonilla
Bono
Brownback
Bryant (TN)
Bunn
Bunning
Burr
Burton
Buyer
Callahan
Calvert
Camp
Campbell
Canady
Castle
Chabot
Chambliss
Chenoweth
Christensen
Chrysler
Clinger
Coble
Coburn
Collins (GA)
Combest
Cooley
Cox
Crane
Crapo
Cremeans
Cubin
Cunningham
Davis
Deal
DeFazio
DeLay
Diaz-Balart
Dickey
Doolittle
Dornan
Dreier
Duncan
Ehlers
Ehrlich
English
Ensign
Everett
Ewing
Fawell
Fields (TX)
Flanagan
Foley
Forbes
Fowler
Fox
Franks (CT)
Franks (NJ)
Frelinghuysen
Frisa
Funderburk
Gallegly
Ganske
Gekas
Gilchrest
Gillmor
Gilman
Goodlatte
Goodling
Goss
Graham
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
[[Page H7206]]
Johnson (CT)
Johnson, Sam
Jones
Kasich
Kelly
Kim
King
Kingston
Klug
Knollenberg
Kolbe
LaHood
Largent
Latham
LaTourette
Laughlin
Lazio
Leach
Lewis (CA)
Lewis (KY)
Lightfoot
Linder
Livingston
LoBiondo
Lucas
Manzullo
Martini
McCollum
McCrery
McHugh
McInnis
McIntosh
McKeon
Metcalf
Meyers
Mica
Miller (FL)
Molinari
Moorhead
Morella
Myers
Myrick
Nethercutt
Neumann
Ney
Norwood
Nussle
Oxley
Packard
Parker
Paxon
Peterson (MN)
Petri
Pombo
Porter
Portman
Pryce
Quillen
Quinn
Radanovich
Ramstad
Regula
Riggs
Roberts
Rogers
Rohrabacher
Ros-Lehtinen
Roth
Roukema
Royce
Salmon
Sanford
Saxton
Scarborough
Schaefer
Schiff
Seastrand
Sensenbrenner
Shadegg
Shaw
Shays
Shuster
Skeen
Smith (MI)
Smith (NJ)
Smith (TX)
Smith (WA)
Solomon
Souder
Spence
Stearns
Stockman
Stump
Talent
Tate
Taylor (NC)
Thomas
Thornberry
Tiahrt
Torkildsen
Upton
Vucanovich
Walker
Walsh
Wamp
Watts (OK)
Weldon (FL)
Weldon (PA)
Weller
White
Whitfield
Wicker
Wolf
Young (AK)
Zeliff
Zimmer
NOT VOTING--12
Clay
Dunn
Ford
Gibbons
Gutierrez
Hayes
Lantos
Lincoln
Longley
McDade
Watt (NC)
Young (FL)
{time} 1644
The Clerk announced the following pairs:
On this vote:
Mr. Linder with Mr. Longley against.
Mr. Clay with Ms. Dunn of Washington against.
So the motion to recommit was rejected.
The result of the vote was announced as above recorded.
The SPEAKER pro tempore (Mr. LaHood). The question is on the passage
of the bill.
Pursuant to clause 7 of rule XV, the yeas and nays are ordered.
This will be a 5-minute vote.
The vote was taken by electronic device, and there were--yeas 360,
nays 58, not voting 15, as follows:
[Roll No. 298]
YEAS--360
Abercrombie
Ackerman
Allard
Archer
Armey
Bachus
Baesler
Baker (CA)
Baker (LA)
Baldacci
Ballenger
Barcia
Barr
Barrett (NE)
Barrett (WI)
Bartlett
Barton
Bass
Bateman
Becerra
Beilenson
Bentsen
Bereuter
Berman
Bevill
Bilbray
Bilirakis
Bishop
Bliley
Blumenauer
Blute
Boehlert
Boehner
Bonilla
Bonior
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
Christensen
Chrysler
Clayton
Clement
Clinger
Clyburn
Coburn
Coleman
Collins (GA)
Combest
Costello
Cox
Coyne
Cramer
Crane
Crapo
Cremeans
Cubin
Cummings
Cunningham
Davis
de la Garza
Deal
DeFazio
DeLauro
DeLay
Deutsch
Diaz-Balart
Dickey
Dicks
Dingell
Dixon
Dooley
Doolittle
Dornan
Doyle
Dreier
Duncan
Durbin
Edwards
Ehlers
Ehrlich
English
Ensign
Eshoo
Evans
Everett
Ewing
Farr
Fawell
Fazio
Fields (LA)
Fields (TX)
Filner
Flake
Flanagan
Foglietta
Foley
Forbes
Fowler
Fox
Frank (MA)
Franks (CT)
Franks (NJ)
Frelinghuysen
Frisa
Frost
Funderburk
Furse
Gallegly
Gejdenson
Gekas
Gephardt
Geren
Gilchrest
Gillmor
Gilman
Gonzalez
Goodlatte
Goodling
Gordon
Goss
Graham
Greene (UT)
Greenwood
Gunderson
Gutknecht
Hall (OH)
Hall (TX)
Hansen
Harman
Hastert
Hastings (FL)
Hastings (WA)
Hayworth
Hefley
Hefner
Heineman
Herger
Hilleary
Hinchey
Hobson
Hoekstra
Hoke
Holden
Horn
Hostettler
Houghton
Hoyer
Hunter
Hutchinson
Inglis
Istook
Jackson (IL)
Jackson-Lee (TX)
Jefferson
Johnson (CT)
Johnson (SD)
Johnson, E.B.
Johnson, Sam
Jones
Kanjorski
Kaptur
Kasich
Kelly
Kennedy (MA)
Kennedy (RI)
Kennelly
Kildee
Kim
King
Kingston
Kleczka
Klink
Klug
Knollenberg
Kolbe
LaFalce
LaHood
Largent
Latham
LaTourette
Laughlin
Lazio
Leach
Levin
Lewis (CA)
Lewis (GA)
Lewis (KY)
Lightfoot
Linder
Lipinski
Livingston
Lowey
Lucas
Luther
Maloney
Manton
Manzullo
Martinez
Martini
Mascara
Matsui
McCarthy
McCollum
McCrery
McHale
McHugh
McInnis
McIntosh
McKeon
McKinney
McNulty
Menendez
Meyers
Mica
Millender-McDonald
Miller (FL)
Mink
Moakley
Molinari
Mollohan
Montgomery
Moorhead
Morella
Murtha
Myers
Myrick
Nadler
Neal
Nethercutt
Ney
Norwood
Nussle
Olver
Ortiz
Owens
Oxley
Packard
Pallone
Parker
Pastor
Paxon
Payne (NJ)
Payne (VA)
Pelosi
Peterson (FL)
Pickett
Pombo
Pomeroy
Porter
Portman
Poshard
Pryce
Quillen
Quinn
Radanovich
Rahall
Ramstad
Rangel
Reed
Regula
Richardson
Riggs
Rivers
Roberts
Rogers
Rohrabacher
Ros-Lehtinen
Rose
Roth
Roukema
Roybal-Allard
Rush
Salmon
Sanders
Sawyer
Saxton
Scarborough
Schaefer
Schiff
Schumer
Scott
Seastrand
Serrano
Shadegg
Shaw
Shays
Shuster
Sisisky
Skaggs
Skeen
Skelton
Smith (MI)
Smith (NJ)
Smith (WA)
Spence
Spratt
Stokes
Studds
Stupak
Tate
Tauzin
Taylor (MS)
Taylor (NC)
Tejeda
Thomas
Thompson
Thornberry
Thornton
Thurman
Tiahrt
Torkildsen
Torres
Towns
Traficant
Upton
Velazquez
Vento
Visclosky
Vucanovich
Walker
Walsh
Wamp
Ward
Waters
Watts (OK)
Weldon (FL)
Weldon (PA)
Weller
White
Whitfield
Wicker
Williams
Wilson
Wise
Wolf
Woolsey
Wynn
Young (AK)
Zeliff
NAYS--58
Andrews
Brown (FL)
Bryant (TX)
Chenoweth
Coble
Collins (IL)
Collins (MI)
Condit
Conyers
Cooley
Danner
Dellums
Doggett
Engel
Fattah
Ganske
Green (TX)
Hamilton
Hancock
Hilliard
Jacobs
Johnston
LoBiondo
Lofgren
Markey
McDermott
Meehan
Meek
Metcalf
Miller (CA)
Minge
Moran
Neumann
Oberstar
Obey
Orton
Peterson (MN)
Petri
Roemer
Royce
Sabo
Sanford
Schroeder
Sensenbrenner
Slaughter
Solomon
Souder
Stark
Stearns
Stenholm
Stockman
Stump
Talent
Tanner
Torricelli
Volkmer
Yates
Zimmer
NOT VOTING--15
Clay
Dunn
Ford
Gibbons
Gutierrez
Hayes
Hyde
Lantos
Lincoln
Longley
McDade
Smith (TX)
Watt (NC)
Waxman
Young (FL)
{time} 1652
So the bill was passed.
The result of the vote was announced as above recorded.
A motion to reconsider was laid on the table.
____________________